Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Attendance Allowance

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to present a petition signed by well over 250,000 people, including 154 hon. Members from both sides of this House. The purpose of the petition is to seek an end to the grave, intolerable and totally avoidable injustice suffered by thousands of seriously disabled people and their families unable to obtain attendance allowances.
The petition originates from the City of Leicester and is sponsored by the lord mayor, the lord bishop and civic and religious leaders of all faiths. It has the support of indignant millions from all over the country. The petition draws particular attention to the plight of Jimmy Martin, aged 10, born with no legs and one arm, who is not sufficiently disabled for his parents to receive the allowance, but the injustice from which they suffer is mirrored by that of thousands of families many of them worse off than the Martins.
The petition calls for the amendment of the law and for changes in the procedure of the Attendance Allowance Board which administers it. In particular, your petitioners demand that the board, against whose decisions on fact there is no appeal, should permit open hearings in appropriate cases, should cease operating as a totally secret tribunal and should cease penalising families like the Martins who courageously and successfully battle against physical or mental disabilities.
I ask the Clerk to read the petition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Standing Orders allow this but I think it is an abuse of the procedure of the House for the hon. and learned Member to address it at length beforehand. However, I will allow the Clerk to read it on this occasion.

The Clerk of the House: The Clerk of the House read the petition, which was as follows:
To the Honourable The Commons of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the Right Worshipful the Lord Mayor of Leicester, the parents of Jimmy Martin of Leicester, civic and religious leaders of the City of Leicester and citizens of Great Britain
Sheweth that

1. Jimmy Martin, of Leicester, was born on 17 December, 1963, with one arm and no legs ;
2. His parents have been refused both a full and partial attendance allowance ;
3. The said refusal was made by the Attendance Allowance Board, sitting in private and in the absence of the Martin family and of their representative ;
4. The Board refused to permit the Honourable Member of Parliament for Leicester North-West to attend the hearing to cross examine witnesses or to address the Board on behalf of his constituents, the Martin family ;
5. There is no right of appeal against the Board's decision on fact ;
6. There are thousands of other families with children or adults requiring attendance due to severe physical or mental disablement who have been refused attendance allowances, thereby causing them to suffer grave and avoidable hardship ;
7. The motion tabled in the House of Commons by the Honourable Member for Leicester North-West and signed by 134 Honourable Members of all parties called for reform of the procedures of the Attendance Allowance Board so that these would accord with the rules of natural justice ;
8. There is grave concern in Parliament, in Leicester and in the rest of Britain at the decision in the Jimmy Martin case and in other like cases ; at the procedure by which these decisions were arrived at ; at the penalising by the law of those families such as the Martins who successfully and lovingly assist their disabled members to minimise the effects of their disabilities ; and at the avoidable and sad hardship above referred to ;
9. In order that the above injustices may be remedied, the National Insurance Act, 1972, requires amendment and the Attendance Allowance Board must be required to alter its procedures.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the National Insurance Act 1972 be amended so as to ensure that the Martin family and others in attendance upon physically or mentally disabled persons in like situation be awarded attendance allowances and that the Attendance Allowance Board be required in appropriate cases to cease sitting in private and to permit claimants or their representatives to appear before it so that justice may both be done and manifestly seen to be done.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, etc.,

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Gross Domestic Product

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request his economic advisory section to evaluate the loss of gross domestic product in Scotland arising from the Government's emergency measures, and publish its conclusions in the Scottish Economic Bulletin.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Estimates of Scottish gross domestic product are based on data which are only available retrospectively on an annual basis. It is therefore not at present possible to evaluate any loss of gross domestic product during the period of the emergency measures.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for that information, but does he not concede that the current loss of production in Scotland has been unnecessary, in view of the possibility of a move to a four-day or a five-day week? Is he aware that many firms in my constituency have been put to considerable hardship, bordering on bankruptcy on occasions, when they are in sight of two power stations, at which according to local rumour—I put it no higher—the coal stocks are sufficient to enable a five-day week to be worked? Will the Government review the whole procedure?

Mr. Campbell: It has been explained to the House that it was necessary to go on to a three-day week when the crisis started, but because of the mild weather since then we are now able to consider other possibilities.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not endorse the terms of the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), but is my right hon. Friend aware of a problem causing grave concern in the Tayside area? Almost a fortnight ago my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced a special concession enabling the wool textile industry to operate on Sundays, where it had traditionally done so. Firms in the jute textile industry, which are in an exactly analogous position, have

so far not been allowed that concession. They and I have consistently telephoned and approached the Department concerned, but we have been unable to obtain an answer. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to put a bomb under the Department of Energy?

Mr. Campbell: I know that my hon. Friend has been pursuing this point on behalf of the jute textile industry in Scotland. He told me about it yesterday. We shall do all we can to ensure that it is sorted out.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement outlining how the statement announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December will affect public expenditure in Scotland.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report details of the cuts in public expenditure to be made by his Department in agriculture, fisheries and food, trade, industry and employment, private industry and commerce, roads and transport, other environmental services, law, order, and protective services, each of the social services and other public services.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I refer to the information by programmes given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 21st January.—[Vol. 867, c. 244.]

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cuts which he is seeking to impose are of unparalled ferocity and that there is in particular extreme resentment at the cavalier way in which the Scottish Development Department has stopped approving all council improvement schemes? Is it not clear that if nothing is done we shall move from overheating in the building industry in Scotland to severe unemployment before the end of the year?

Mr. Campbell: The measures are being carried out on a United Kingdom basis. The housing improvement schemes to which the hon. Gentleman referred are those for which local authorities are responsible. So many have already been approved that local authorities will have


difficulty in digesting them. New housing has not been affected by the measures.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his Department is spreading circulars like confetti? To my knowledge ait least four have been issued dealing with various aspects of health, education, housing, and other matters. They mean, in effect, a cut in the standard of living of ordinary, poor working people. That is the indictment of the Government, that repeatedly, budget after budget and public expenditure cuts after public expenditure cuts hit people who can least bear the burdens. That is the gross unfairness of the society the Government have created since 1970.

Mr. Campbell: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The circulars have been sent out quickly in response to requests for information and advice about the application of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. MacArthur: In order to get the matter into perspective, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many housing improvements are now taking place, or how many have been completed in the last year for which figures are conveniently available? Will the postponement of expenditure announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any effect on the rebuilding of the A9 Perth to Inverness road and the further development of the M90 motorway, both of which are central to oil development in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, I cannot give an exact figure without notice. House improvement schemes in both the private and public sectors have been much greater in number in the past year or two than ever before. I confirm that work on the A9 is not affected by my right hon. Friend's announcement and that other road programmes connected with North Sea oil are exempted.

Sir M. Galpern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the housing improvement schemes approved by Glasgow Corporation are of extreme urgency? Should not the House be told that the Secretary of State for Scotland has stopped all such improvement schemes?
Why, therefore, is it fair to tell the House that this is a matter for the local authorities? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared, in the case of the City of Glasgow, to give special consideration to the urgent problem of improving houses which at present are slums?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. There are house improvement schemes which have been approved. There is a great deal to be done, and it will be difficult for what has already been approved to be digested and carried out. It is new schemes, from a certain date, for which approval has been stopped.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend take a further step to put into proper perspective the hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and confirm that it is not a question of cuts in public expenditure but merely a question of curbing the growth rate in public expenditure? Did not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends support their Government in 1969 in imposing far more savage restrictions on the growth of public expenditure?

Mr. Campbell: The reduction we are discussing is in respect of future programmes. It is a general reduction of 20 per cent. in capital formation and 10 per cent. in procurement expenditure, with exemptions in Scotland for important infrastructure expenditure connected with North Sea oil developments.

Mr. Ross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there are to be cuts of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure and 10 per cent. in current expenditure, but certain areas are to be exempt, other areas will have to bear much more savage cuts? Is he aware that there are to be cuts of £18 million in education and that roads, transport and environmental services bear more than 50 per cent. of the £72·3 million cuts. In view of the hopes and expectations of improvements in services, which are much needed, and which he took pride in saying that the Government were going to spend money on, that is not a matter for triumph but is a severe reflection on the Government's handling of the whole economy.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman must have been in dreamland if he


did not realise that the programmes he mentions are amongst those which we hoped to carry out before the international energy crisis and events at home caused this to be done. I have made clear publicly that I am disappointed that programmes for Scotland have to be slowed down in this way at a time when all the indicators in 1973—emigration, unemployment, and, above all, job vacancies—were so good and were set fair for Scotland.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has so far had with local authorities regarding the implementation of the Government's decision to curb the rate of growth in public expenditure.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Representatives of the local authority associations discussed with me on 18th January the rate support grant for 1974–75 and the savings required in both capital and current expenditure.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Since the curbs on excessive State spending go to the root of inflation, will my right hon. Friend make sure that full publicity is given to any recalcitrance on the part of any local authorities, so that the people of Scotland may know who the friends of inflation are? Will he at the same time reassure the House that there is no truth in reports that he indicated to the local authorities that he was reducing by £2½ million the savings that were required of them and that there has been no backsliding at St. Andrews House in this respect?

Mr. Campbell: I think that I got the co-operation of the local authority representatives who appeared to recognise that the national economic situation called for special measures. But, understandably, they represented the serious consequences to the services for which they are responsible. I informed them of the exact amount of savings that they would have to make, which were slightly less than they had originally been told.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Secretary of State agree that the importance in public expenditure is not only the rate of growth, or growth at all, but the purposes for which it is used? Will he do his best to impress on local authorities that they

should concentrate on useful purposes, such as assistance to production, housing, and the improvement of the surroundings of houses, and not on such things as office building and, in some cases, the unnecessary straightening out of corners on roads which are already quite adequate?

Mr. Campbell: I think that the local authority representatives were in agreement with me that it was necessary to concentrate on essential services and projects. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement with that.

Mr. Ross: May we take it that the figures given by the Secretary of State on Monday, 21st January, at col. 244 of Hansard, in a Written Answer to his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were virtually the allocations given to the local authorities for various matters? That being so, did he get the agreement of the local authorities? Of course, there was not much that they could do about it when he said that that was all the money they were getting. Surely he was not discussing the Rate Support Grant Order for 1974–75, because we had that last year. I presume that he was discussing the rate increase order that is due to come before the House. Indeed, I am surprised that we have not yet had it. When shall we get it?

Mr. Campbell: We were discussing the rate increase order, but we also discussed the new Rate Support Grant Order, because the Local Government (Scotland) Act has changed the situation and we must start with another order. In the context of considering the Rate Support Grant Order we naturally had to take into account the reductions in expenditure that local authorities now have to make. Within the broad headings and figures the local authorities are left to make their own decisions, but, as I have just said, we agreed that essential projects and services should get priority.

Truancy Officers

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many truancy officers have been appointed in Scotland ; and by which education authorities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): There is no regular


return by education authorities but the most recent information suggested that 20 authorities employed some 280 officials whose duties include attendance.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that this is a growing and challenging problem to local education authorities and that notwithstanding the shortage of professional teaching staffs it has been known for teachers to drive around in mini-buses to find absconders and bring them back to school? Is it not time that the Under-Secretary arranged for a top-level inquiry into the degree of defaults in Scotland at present, with a view to taking the necessary remedial action.

Mr. Monro: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. My Department gave guidance on this serious problem two years ago, and we are now urgently considering what further steps to take.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: What on earth is a truancy officer?

Mr. Monro: His duties include finding out why children are not in their places in school.

Mrs. MacDonald: Does the Minister agree that the truancy problem in Scotland could be partially solved if he agreed to allow 16-year-olds, who are now forced to remain in school until the first available leaving date, to leave on their 16th birthday, as many of them are non-certificated pupils with no interest in remaining in school and are not catered for owing to the shortfall in teachers in Scotland?

Mr. Monro: I do not want to go in depth into the last part of the hon. Lady's question. This is one of the matters we are considering very carefully before deciding what action to take in the very near future. I hope not to become too deeply involved in the question of the dates on which pupils should leave school, because my right hon. Friend and I have said that we shall perhaps review the matter later in the year.

Mr. Ross: Can the Minister give us advance information about the number of 16-year-olds who left school and are still without a job? We shall have the figure tomorrow. May we have it today?

Mr. Monro: No, Sir.

House Building

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the housing completions by local authorities, private developers and other public agencies during 1973.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): The figure was 30,033, of which 14,432 houses were completed by local authorities, 3,386 by other public sector agencies, and 12,215 by private developers.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that those shattering figures will be received with consternation by the homeless in Scotland? Is he aware that he begins his second incarnation as a Scottish Minister with the lowest figure of house completions for local authorities in any year since 1948, and that the total number of houses built in Scotland is less than the local authority programme completed by the Labour Government in 1970? Is he also aware that there is little hope in terms of new starts and houses in progress, as their number has fallen consistently every year? What priority will the hon. Gentleman give to relieving the housing situation in Scotland?

Mr. Taylor: We shall do everything we can to get the housing situation in Scotland right, but it is for local authorities, not the Government, to initiate house building programmes. We have been encouraging them to build as many houses as they can. I remind the hon. Gentleman, first, that the figure of private building that I announced for last year is an all-time record. Secondly, the houses under construction by local authorities, or approved and awaiting start, total more than 50,000. We do not want to try to solve today's housing problems with yesterday's solutions. Many authorities have now met the numerical shortage of houses and are rightly concentrating on house improvement, of which the figures are a record, and on special needs. There is a great deal to be done, and I believe that we shall get it right.

Mr. MacArthur: What were the approval figures in the same years as have been quoted? Will my hon. Friend


remind us of the shattering fall in local authority house building approvals by the Labour Government? How many houses in Scotland are now standing empty because there are no tenants for them in certain areas?

Mr. Taylor: I could quote exciting figures for what the previous Government did, but I do not want to deal with the matter in a controversial way. The Government are not imposing, limitations on new house building, which has been exempted from the cuts. In many areas the numerical shortage has been dealt with, but there are many big problems to be dealt with in meeting specialist needs, such as more houses for the elderly, and house improvement. The figures of approvals for house improvements last year were a staggering all-time record.

Mr. David Steel: We accept, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is always non-controversial in these matters, but as he is the new and fresh face at the Scottish Office, will he undertake to examine the length of time taken in his Department to siphon through approvals for both local authority and Scottish Special Housing Association projects? Will he assure the House that delaying approvals is not being used as a method of cutting back public expenditure on housing?

Mr. Taylor: I can give the hon. Gentleman that categorical assurance. If there are difficulties in approvals, I shall be glad to look into them. I have a great deal still to learn. I repeat that houses under construction by public authorities or approved and awaiting start are more than 50,000, which is no mean figure.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of public sector houses built in each year from 1959 to 1973, inclusive.

Mr. Edward Taylor: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that when the figures are published they will clearly show that a Tory Government are the scourge of the homeless in Scotland? Why have his Government deliberately engineered a crisis in public sector

house building by cutting the rate of completions by more than 17,000 in 1973 as compared with 1970, especially at a time when the private sector neither by volume of output nor, more important, by price, can meet the needs of the homeless in Scotland? Is it that the Tories have a vendetta against the Scots when it comes to housing policy?

Mr. Taylor: I want to be non-controversial, but the hon. Gentleman is being scandalously unfair and unreasonable. He must know, because he has an interest in these matters, that the Government have not cut new house building. There are no cuts whatsoever in new house building. The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that local authorities are now concentrating on other needs apart from simply providing houses. For example, the approvals last year for improvement of public sector houses were over 70,000. The year before we came to power the figure was 11,000. The increase to 70,000 is a dramatic change. If we are to solve the housing problems we should not use foolish and misleading language, which does not get us anywhere.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I first say to my hon. Friend "Welcome back". Will he confirm that the 1,500-plus council houses standing vacant in Dundee are of no value to the homeless? Is not that situation a scandalous indictment of the housing policies of the previous Labour Government and successive Labour administrations of the city of Dundee?

Mr. Taylor: Houses lying empty, even though there is apparently a substantial number of people wanting houses, are becoming a problem in some areas. The housing needs of the future are different. We must concentrate on ensuring that we do not build a series of concrete jungles, because they do not solve the problem. Instead, they create a problem of vacant houses when there is an apparent demand.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the empty houses in Dundee referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were built by the 1963 Conservative Government and were not the result of the 1964–70 Labour administration? I ask the Minister, as the new patch on a very old pair of trousers, whether he is satisfied with


the public sector record in house building in Scotland. Does he intend to improve on his predecessor's record or to continue in the same inefficient manner, in the hope that he will receive the same promotion?

Mr. Taylor: I very much object to the suggestion that my predecessor was inefficient. One of the problems the hon. Gentleman will perhaps discover in due course, in the unlikely event of his party returning to power, is that it is very difficult to take over a job from someone who did it very well, as my hon. Friend who is now Minister of State for Defence did. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no question of our holding back on public sector house building where it is needed. We shall give every encouragement. But we do not want to make the mistakes of the past. Where there are social problems arising from mistakes by the previous Government or our Government, we want to put them right in community terms.

Following is the information—

Public secctor New Houses Completed


1959
23,061


1960
22,063


1961
20,083


1962
18,977


1963
21,595


1964
29,509


1965
27,563


1966
28,159


1967
33,960


1968
33,269


1969
34,302


1970
34,947


1971
29,130


1972
20,155


1973
17,818

Hydro-Electric Power

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any investigations have been carried out by his Department into future potential developments in the generation of hydroelectric power.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Yes, Sir. These confirmed that the future of hydro-electric development lay mainly in pumped storage schemes. While these are not net producers of energy, they can help other forms of power station to be used flexibly and efficiently.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful for that answer, but will the Minister look again

to see whether there is scope for smaller hydro-electric schemes than the ones we have built in recent years? Are not they a good hedge against inflation, and do not they add to our total energy resources?

Mr. Taylor: That is certainly an interesting question. In physical terms the information I have is that probably no more than 1,000 megawatts of conventional hydro-electric generating capacity can be developed in Scotland. Recent investigations carried out with the assistance of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board showed that none of this would be economic, but in view of the continually changing situation and cost levels the possibilities will be kept under continuous review.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend think that, as we should be less dependent on coal and oil for electricity generation in the future, there should be a review of the possibilities of pumped storage, which will require liaison between the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Several studies are under investigation for development by the hydro-electric boards when required.

Education

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement about his meeting with the Educational Institute for Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers for Scotland.

Mr. Monro: I had useful meetings on 8th January with both organisations and discussed staffing, accommodation and working conditions generally. I am now considering a number of points that were put to me, including the institute's proposal for a working party on conditions of service.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree after meeting both organisations that their members are the moderates in the teaching profession? Having visited Lanarkshire, does not he agree that there should be an immediate inquiry, as the situation there requires immediate attention? What remedy has he for dealing with this serious position, bearing in


mind the go-slow in Scotland as a whole and in Lanarkshire in particular?

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps exaggerating when he says "Scotland as a whole". I have had very useful talks with the teaching associations and last week I met the employing associations. In the light of what everyone has told me I shall make a decision fairly shortly on what steps to take. On the general issue, we are looking closely at the designation scheme and hope to make an announcement on it in the not too distant future. I am having very constructive talks with the local authority associations about recruitment generally in Scotland and on the possibility of the better staffed authorities not recruiting as many staff as they have in the past, so that other areas, particularly Lanarkshire and Glasgow, will have a better opportunity this summer.

Mr. Carmichael: Does the Minister accept that we are pleased that he is thinking in terms of a spread of the available teaching manpower over the country as a whole? What is his attitude to the inquiry that both organisations have requested? I agree that a Royal Commission is perhaps a bit more than is required, but is not the situation so bad and so puzzling that a deeper inquiry than the one he promised is necessary?

Mr. Monro: I accept, as I have always done, that the situation in Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire is difficult. I ask hon. Members to keep the matter in perspective by looking at Scotland as a whole, where the pupil-teacher ratio is better now than it has been in any other year, with the exception of 1972. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for preferring not to make a statement at the moment. I have told the teaching associations that I shall let them know as early as possible in February, and I am busily considering all the information they have put to me.

Hunterston (Oil Refinery)

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received for the construction of an oil refinery at Hunterston ; what action he has taken on such proposals ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have before me two planning applications for the

construction of an oil refinery on substantially the same areas of land at Hunterston. Consultations about these have still to be completed, and a report from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee should reach me in the near future in connection with the nuclear power stations.

Mr. Lambie: Is not the Secretary of State's indecision against the best interests of the Scottish people? Is he aware that his failure to give a quick decision on the Chicago Bridge application to build an oil platform at Dunnet Bay has cost 700 jobs, and that his failure to give the go-ahead to the petro-chemical installation at Hunterston may cost North Ayrshire 4,000 jobs, at a time when British Rail has decided to lift the railway track between Dairy and Kilmarnock? Does not the Secretary of State's lack of decision on Hunterston suggest either that it is time he got out of the job or made a decision which would be of benefit to incoming industrialists who are looking for sites in the Irvine New Town area?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in speaking about indecision. These applications have been put in as revisions. My major decision that there will be industrial development at Hunterston was taken a long time ago. I could not ignore the nuclear safety aspects to which I referred. The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed about the position at Dunnet Bay. The company's decision was taken three months after planning permission had been granted, for, in its own words, "geophysical reasons." The company is reported as saying that the geophysical reasons meant that its first platform could be built a year earlier at the alternative site.

Mr. Galbraith: Will my right hon. Friend tell me where the oil is coming from? Is it coming from the North Sea or from Arabia? Because of the shortage of Arabian oil it is presumably coming from the North Sea, in which case should not the development be at Grangemouth rather than in Ayrshire?

Mr. Campbell: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Hunterston applications. I hope that by the time a refinery is operating at Hunterston the


oil will be coming from British waters as well as from abroad.

Mr. Ross: For how long has the Secretary of State had these proposals before him?

Mr. Campbell: These proposals in their revised form have been before me for some weeks. The right hon. Gentleman must have been following this matter, so he will know that there have been complications in finding a combination of industry to make the best use of this important but limited industrial site with its unique deep water facilities and to make the best contribution to the health of Scotland's economy.

Rent Rebates

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will propose discussions with Scottish local authorities regarding rent rebates as a result of the three-day week.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Local authorities already have powers to adjust the rebate or allowance on any change in a tenant's circumstances, however caused. They may also, where appropriate, base any rebate or allowance on evidence of earnings week by week instead of over the normal five weeks or two months. This flexibility should be quite adequate in the present situation, but, of course, I should be glad to look into any difficulties of which the hon. Gentleman may be aware.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the number of people entitled to rent rebates and rent allowances in Scotland as the result of the three-day week will almost double, and that many people are now living on a much lower wage? Will the Minister consider circularising Scottish local authorities to the effect that they can consider earnings week by week as opposed to considering them for a five-week period?

Mr. Taylor: Indeed, local authorities can where appropriate base any rebate scheme on evidence of earnings week by week, as one or two local authorities are doing. I hope that that information is available to all. If the hon. Gentleman's own authority has any difficulty I hope it will consult the Department. I shall look carefully at his sensible suggestion.

Mr. MacArthur: Is there any truth in the recent report that one-third of Edinburgh tenants are receiving rent rebates under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act?

Mr. Taylor: No, that information is not correct. I have not seen the report referred to. The position is not that one-third of Edinburgh tenants are receiving a rebate, but that one-half of them are. The exact figure is 51·98 per cent. That is the figure before the recent difficulties. The average rebate is more than £100 per year.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the recent three-day week and the consequent increase in the number of rebates be allowed for in the Government's calculations when we receive the rate support grant increase orders?

Mr. Taylor: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer, but I assure him that the new orders will take into account all relevant factors.

Orthopaedic Consultations

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to ensure a reduction in the waiting time for orthopaedic consultations in the East Fife Hospital Board of Management Hospitals, following the board's decision to provide facilities for private practice by one of its part-time orthopaedic consultants.

Mr. Monro: The provision of facilities for private practice in Scottish hospitals requires my right hon. Friend's authorisation. I understand that such an application in respect of private orthopaedic consultation facilities has been made by the board of management for East Fife hospitals, but the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board has not yet considered it. All aspects of this matter, including the possible effect on waiting times for orthopaedic consultations, will be carefully considered before my right hon. Friend takes a decision.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware—I am sure he must be, in view of all the correspondence on this matter and his replies to previous Questions—of the frustration, misery and suffering caused to orthopaedic patients in my constituency? If and when he receives the


board's decision to provide such facilities for private practice, in view of the possible queue-jumping that will follow that decision, will he undertake not to approve this request while such unsatisfactory conditions exist for National Health Service patients?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate that the waiting list in Fife is longer than I should like, but I must not in any way prejudge a decision before the papers reach me.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware of the great anger there will be in Fife if this private facility is provided, since it will clearly result in queue jumping? We very much object to a system under which the richer one is and the more fees one can afford to pay, the higher up the queue one goes. This is an obscenity.

Mr. Monro: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view because the Expenditure Committee of the House concluded that private practice operates to the overall benefit of the National Health Service. I hope he will also remember that private practice in hospitals comes within the provisions of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 Act as it applies to Scotland. Under this Act only four hospitals have had approval, three of which were approved by the Labour Government.

Dr. Miller: Is it not about time that we got rid completely of this outmoded and archaic system of part-time consultancy private practice?

Mr. Monro: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. He should remember that it was an all-party Expenditure Committee of this House that considered the matter and decided otherwise.

School Bursaries

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the regulations to allow increased higher school bursaries to be paid by local authorities.

Mr. Monro: The rates of higher school bursaries are at present under consideration with a view to amending the regulations to enable increased bursaries to be paid for session 1974–75.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister confirm that this is probably the most important bursary in the whole bursary system and that it is the most direct encouragement to able children from poorer families to stay on in higher education? Is he aware that under the present system if parents have an income of about £23 they do not qualify for any bursary at all? In view of the inflationary situation, is it not time that there was a rapid review of the situation so that there should be a more generous pattern of bursaries in this important sector?

Mr. Monro: This is exactly what my Department and I are doing at the moment. We are going into these matters in detail. An announcement will be made in good time.

Mr. Hannan: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Members for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) on this matter. Does the Minister recall that some time ago the regulations were amended to give some consideration to children who were infirm or handicapped. They were condemned to stay on at school until they were 16, as against the normal leaving age of 15. Now that the school leaving age has been raised to 16, with the probability that these children will stay on for a further period, will the Minister bear in mind this point in any review of the regulations?

Mr. Monro: Yes, I shall bear that point in mind. There always was an incentive to encourage children to stay on after school leaving age. We must not get involved in an argument about the respective merits of the ages 15 and 16.

Offshore Oil

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consequential responsibilities have fallen upon him as a result of the setting up of the new Department of Energy.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the organisation of responsibilities within the Scottish Office for offshore oil development.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Department of Energy has functions previously exercised by the Department of Trade and Industry, and the responsibilities of the Scottish Office are unchanged. In


particular the responsibility for electricity in Scotland remain with the Scottish Office and my noble Friend's special rôle in oil developments affecting Scotland continues as before, including his chairmanship of the Oil Development Council for Scotland.
The interdepartmental task force established last year under Scottish Office leadership will continue to co-ordinate and propose action on oil development matters affecting Scotland, assisted by the North Sea Oil Support Group of the Scottish Economic Planning Department.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Labour Members feel that a Minister separate from the Department of Energy should have been established in Scotland to deal exclusively with energy as a whole? Is he further aware that coal is no longer the Cinderella of the energy fuels and that my requests, made in the past, for an energy commission for Scotland were not misplaced? Will he ensure that in his dealing with the new Department of Energy the need for a full investigation into coal resources in Scotland will be stressed, and that once and for all we can scotch the idea that Scotland has not a large quantity of workable coal reserves?

Mr. Campbell: I note what the hon. Gentleman said about coal reserves. Coal, both in Scotland and in England, was under the Department of Trade and Industry and is now under the new Department of Energy. I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that one of the Ministers from the Department of Energy might have been permanently in Scotland. But an alternative view is that one of the Scottish Office Ministers should have special responsibility for North Sea oil and other matters that go with it, including infrastructure. That is the situation we have at present.

Mr. MacArthur: Although it is only two and a half years since oil was discovered in commercial quantities in the North Sea, will the Secretary of State make certain that the necessary infrastructure will be ready to meet the heavy demands in the years ahead?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, we have a special housing operation in the North of Scotland, which was launched some time ago. It includes over 3,500 houses to be built

by the Scottish Special Housing Association. There are also special road programmes, which will be unaffected by reductions in public expenditure.

Mr. Maclennan: In respect of the Secretary of State's own planning responsibilities and further to the decision by the Chicago Bridge Company on the Dunnet Bay proposal—which he continues to insist is not his fault, but as a result of which Scotland lost 700 jobs—is he pretending that the geophysical difficulties were incapable of being overcome? In fact, is it not the position that had he not attached restrictive conditions to the grant of planning permission, which prevented the company from continuing on the site, this project could have gone ahead? Is he not aware that a "Government of businessmen" as they like to describe themselves, cannot be taken seriously when they refer these matters—as did the Secretary of State when I brought the dangers in this particular case to his attention—to some junior officials in the Scottish Economic Planning Department and the Offshore Supplies Office? Are not 700 jobs worth the attention of a member of the Cabinet?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the situation. He is not taking any notice of what the company itself said. The company did not speak of "geophysical difficulties". It said that the geophysical situation was better at the alternative site, since it enabled it to build the platform a year earlier than would have been the case at Dunnet Bay. I was as disappointed as those in Caithness that three months after planning permission had been granted the company should have taken this decision. On the question of platform building as a whole, there are nine sites in Scotland which have planning clearance for platforms to be built and four of them are being used, but in no case has there been any delay in planning procedure which has affected the work.

Mr. Millan: Is it not clear that the Secretary of State for Energy was appointed by the Prime Minister without taking account of Lord Polwarth's position? Perhaps he had forgotten that Lord Polwarth was actually there. What is the noble Lord meant to be doing now? Is


there not a danger that the new Department will usurp the responsibilities that the Secretary of State still has in Scotland—for example, in the planning of sites for concrete production platforms?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. Because Lord Polwarth was already doing the job, with the special responsibility that he was given last year by the Prime Minister, there was no need to make any change and there has been no change. The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. There has been no change in the special responsibility that Lord Polwarth holds for dealing with North Sea oil matters affecting Scotland. As I said in my original reply, the Department of Energy is taking its functions from the Department of Trade and Industry. The functions of the Scottish Office, including the rôle of the Minister of State, are completely unchanged. We will help the new Department and the Secretary of State for Energy to get on with, among other things, the urgent job of obtaining North Sea oil.

Fishing Gear (Damage from Oil Drillings)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about dangers of fishing gear from sealed-off oil drillings in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland ; and if he will make a statement.

The Under Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am well aware of fishermen's concern about the possible damage from contact between fishing gear and wells where drilling has been suspended. The matter has been raised at meetings between representatives of the fishing industry and officials of the Departments involved and there will be further discussions shortly about ways and means of lessening the risks.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fishermen are as worried about possible damage to their gear as about the fact that it could involuntarily cause large-scale pollution of the sea, against which they are anxious to be safeguarded?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am very much aware of the concern that has been expressed on this matter. I have spoken to

the fishermen and considered representations that have been made to me. I assure my hon. Friend that these discussions should help considerably in lessening the risks.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Under-Secretary address himself to the fact that there is inadequate fire protection available for the oil-drilling platforms? For instance, how many full-time fire brigades are available in the Highlands area?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is another question, relating to oil rigs and drilling in the North Sea. However, I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my colleagues who are responsible and interested.

Fishing Rights (Hunter Report)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Hunter Committee's Report on Fishing Rights.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We intend to introduce legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, but with the many demands on parliamentary time it is unlikely that a Bill can be presented in the present Session.

Mr. Dalyell: In the meantime, what has become of the Hunter recommendations on the stocking of poor waters for public use?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the Government's White Paper on this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Hairmyres Hospial (Matron)

Dr. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Board of Management of the Coatbridge and Airdrie Group of hospitals has not appointed a matron or principal nursing officer to Hairmyres Hospital ; and when they intend to do so.

Mr. Monro: No appointment was made following the retirement of the matron because of the imminence of the implementation of a Salmon scheme for the


hospitals in this group. I understand that the regional hospital board has advised the board of management that the officer acting as matron should be substantively promoted to this post.

Dr. Miller: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. Why has the board taken so long to make this appointment? Will there be retrospective action on the loss of salaries and pension rights involved among the nursing staff in this hospital? Does he accept that in a situation where, as one of the staff of the hospital has written and informed me, a 22-year old third-year nursing student takes home £16·40 per week, it is about time that something was done to implement the report in this and other hospitals in Scotland?

Mr. Monro: The hospital boards in Scotland have made substantial progress in moving towards the Salmon structure. Indeed, only 13 out of 65 boards have not implemented the scheme in full. There was delay here because of the retirement of the previous matron and the fact that the chief nursing officer for the whole group has not yet been appointed. However, the board is now moving as quickly as possible. In any event, the new area health board should make the appointment as soon as possible after 30th April.

Oil Development Council

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings the Oil Development Council has had ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Three. In addition, committees established by the council to examine infrastructure and environmental questions associated with North Sea oil have met seven times.

Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that three meetings represent an inadequate number? Does he also agree that there is considerable confusion about who is responsible for oil and its development in related industries? Should not the council be made totally independent, which I would recommend, so that it can talk impartially about the impact of oil on the social life and economy of Scotland or be put under the new Secretary of State for Energy to whom its name would seem relevant?

Mr. Campbell: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the setting up of this council originally. It is an advisory, not an executive, body. It brings together people with a great many Scottish interests. Therefore, it is a Scottish body. While those primarily concerned with amenity matters might not share the same views as members who come from industry, discussion and study can lead to advice which can be in the best interests of Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if the Oil Development Council makes a recommendation—for example, about the rate of exploitation—it will not be over-ruled by the new Secretary of State for Energy?

Mr. Campbell: It will receive the fullest consideration by Ministers.

CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONER

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that it is not now possible for an hon. Member to table a Question for oral reply by the Second Church Estates Commissioner, which it was possible to do up to about a year ago?
At that time, as I understand it, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Marcus Worsley), the Second Church Estates Commissioner, was removed from the roster by the action of the usual channels which, in their usual way, did so without informing the House. The House has lost a right which I value, being a Member whose constituency contains many properties which are owned by the Church Commissioners. I wish to put some Questions to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for Oral Answer, as well as some for Written Answer.
I realise that, by tradition, the roster is a matter not for the Procedure Committee but for the usual channels and their secretive ways, but, as this matter closely affects the right of Members, I ask you to use your influence to have the hon. Member for Chelsea restored to the roster in his capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and to ensure that in future if the usual channels


have it in mind to remove somebody from the roster they take some steps to let the House know and to consult the House before that is done, rather than do things behind the backs of hon. Members.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): May I assure the House that no discourtesy of any sort was intended by the removal from the roster of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Marcus Worsley), the Second Church Estates Commissioner.
The fact of the matter was that my hon. Friend was likely to be away at the United Nations on a permanent assignment for a number of months in the autumn, and it was therefore suggested through the usual channels that as so few Questions were put down to him it might be reasonable to remove him from the roster.
If we find that there is a demand for my hon. Friend to answer Questions, we shall be prepared to restore him to the roster at a time convenient to the rest of the House. What the House has to understand, however, is that if we restore my hon. Friend to the roster it will probably mean that some other hon. Member who has a Question down to another Minister will have just that much less time in which to have it dealt with. But that is something for the House to decide. We should want to meet the wishes of the House.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that my right hon. Friend's explanation is rather weak. To suggest that someone is removed from the roster because the Member who officially answers Questions is absent is not our usual practice. On many occasions when a Minister is absent, for all sorts of reasons, somebody is deputed to answer for him. I in no way object to the fact that by removing my hon. Friend's name from the roster more time is made available for other Questions, but I think that my right hon. Friend's explanation wants brushing up before it is accepted.

Mr. Faulds: May I declare an interest as a Member who has a Question to the

Second Church Estates Commissioner? If the right hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to get someone from his side of the House to take on this onerous job, may I volunteer for it?

Mr. Prior: I am not certain that that would be in order, but what the other Church Estates Commissioners may feel about it might be of some importance.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Surely the restoration of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, or any other member, to the roster would not of itself infringe the possibility of another Minister having more time to answer his own Questions? If there were no Questions to the commissioner, the fact that he was on the register would not prejudice the rights of another Minister.

Mr. Prior: Of course not. We should have to put the Second Church Estates Commissioner back on the roster at, say, 3.25 on one afternoon. That would mean that if there were Questions to him, some other hon. Member would not get his Question, to another Minister, answered. If, on the other hand, there were no Questions to the commissioner, it would make no difference. It is as broad as it is long.

Mr. Speaker: This matter was raised as a point of order. I have listened with interest to the exchanges and the exciting possibilities that have been suggested. I think that there is no more for me to say.

BILLS PRESENTED

PENSIONS (INCREASE)

The Prime Minister, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Carr, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Rippon, Mrs. Secretary Thatcher, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Richard Wood, and Mr. Kenneth Baker presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to provide for increases of certain official pensions and to amend the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 ; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

HOUSING AND PLANNING

Mr. Secretary Rippon, supported by Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Tom Boardman, and Mr. Attorney-General presented a Bill to extend the functions of the Housing Corporation and provide for the registration of, and the giving of financial assistance to, certain housing associations ; to make provision for housing action areas and to make further provision in relation to general improvement areas ; to provide for the making of grants towards the improvement, repair and provision of housing accommodation and for the compulsory improvement of such accommodation ; to make provision concerning unoccupied office premises ; to make further provision in relation to the development of land ; to amend the law relating to expenditure by local authorities and other bodies in connection with the provision and improvement of housing accommodation and of hostels ; to raise the rateable value limits under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ; to amend the Housing Finance Act 1972 ; to amend the law relating to the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants ; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE (AMENDMENT) BELL

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the rules relating to attendance allowances and the procedure of the Attendance Allowance Board.
I assure the House that I shall not trespass upon its time even for the customary maximum ten minutes, but the injustices which the Bill is designed to remove are grave and widespread and merit the compassionate consideration of the House.
The petition which I was privileged to introduce previously provided an outlet for the outraged indignation of vast numbers of people, but it provides no remedy and cannot do so. That is a matter for

this House. Nevertheless, the unanimity of those who are concerned with the petition, and the compassionate concern of all in even one city—the city of Leicester, from the lord mayor to the head of the licensed victuallers to the head of the Salvation Army—should indicate to the Government the extent to which there is worry and indignation over this matter throughout the country. Indeed, 250,000 signatures is a great deal to be produced by an entirely volunteer team led by the Martins and staffed mainly by old-age pensioners, schoolchildren and a few kindly helpers.
The problem here is simple. It is that a well-intentioned Act of Parliament has gone wrong, that far too many people who are seriously disabled are not helped, because, through some quirk in the law or in its interpretation, it is held that they are not disabled enough. The Martin family happens to be particularly courageous and outspoken, with a little boy who, though he may have only one limb, has a very good head and is capable of withstanding the pressures of a campaign and enjoying it.
There are thousands of other families with children who are worse off, and since this campaign began we have received literally thousands of letters, many of them from people with mentally disabled children, with mongol children and, indeed, with adults whom they are looking after and whom somebody has said are not sufficiently disabled for the family to receive an attendance allowance.
When one asks why, one cannot get an answer because the Attendance Allowance Board which makes the decision sits in secret. There is no appeal against its decisions on points of fact. One cannot argue one's case before it, and yet the board has a decision to make which affects totally and seriously the lives of entire families.
When this matter came to my hands, I asked several hon. Members whether they would agree to sign the petition. I found almost total unanimity in the House, because nearly all of us have cases with which we are concerned in which injustices have been done.
The Bill is sponsored by hon. Members from both sides of the House who have this concern and want to do something


about it. We are not saying that the members of the board are anything other than admirable, and in many cases distinguished and kindly people. But we are saying that they have no right to make these decisions in total privacy and without providing time to those who are charged with responsibility for these cases to appear before the board to hear the arguments. There are enough secret courts and tribunals. Let us open up this board so that we cease to have what amounts to a disablement Star Chamber, even one which is staffed by people so distinguished.
There are only two possible reasons why these matters could be wrong, why such injustice could be done. One is that the law is wrong, and the other is that it is administered without sufficient flexibility and compassion. Compassion and flexibility are important virtues. One can stretch a point in order to help. The trouble is that some do stretch points and some families get help while others do not. The whole system has gone wrong and needs attending to.
The solution does not lie in private benevolence. I gladly pay tribute to the Variety Club of Great Britain, which has helped the Martins. I gladly pay tribute to the Rowntree Trust, which is administering a Government fund which, by a marvellous stroke of good fortune, just two or three days before the petition was due to arrive in the House, produced a grant for Jimmy Martin towards his clothing.
The answer lies in the attendance allowance being available for those for whom it was intended, namely, families who are caring for disabled children and adults, and enabling these children and adults to live more or less normal lives at home, instead of being in hospitals or institutions and being cared for by the State at vast public expense. It is obviously a good Act, but it clearly needs amendment.
Unfortunately, there are limits on what any backbencher can do, however passionately he is involved and for however long. The limit is largely that we cannot introduce a Private Member's Bill which involves any kind of charge on the Exchequer. My Bill will not do so. It is a matter for the Government to do

that. I hope that they will take note of the outrage of the public and take action accordingly. I shall shortly seek an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services to see what he is prepared to do to meet the wishes of not only the vast bulk of people in this country but also those of the vast majority of hon. Members.
My Bill would, first, tidy up some of the anomalies. It would give definitions of what is night and what is day, for example. Only a few weeks ago we won a case for people on home dialysis, on kidney machines. They said that three nights was not enough for the allowance but that four nights would have been enough. What is a night? They go on the machine one day when it is light and come off it the next day when it is also light.
What about the "requirement" of attendance? Is it right, for example, that when a mother says, "I have a child with no legs and I escort him to a normal school and he is watched unobtrusively", the board should be able to reply that he does not "require" attendance allowance. That is what the board said in the Martin case.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) drew my attention to a case in which the board gives people only a partial allowance, relying on a most peculiar quirk of the law. Is that right?
The first thing that my Private Member's Bill can do is to provide some useful tidying-up, and I hope that the Department will co-operate in this matter.
Second, the procedures of the board can be altered. Here we come to the terms of the petition, namely, that the board should be required to sit openly in appropriate cases and to hear representatives. I have asked the Government whether they will order it to do so. and the Government have replied that they cannot do that because the board regulates its own procedures. If it regulates them in that way, it must cease regulating them from now on in such a manner as to prevent justice manifestly being seen to be done. Even people who have been turned down are entitled to know that their cases have been properly considered and argued.
I do not believe it possible for a board to consider a case on intricate points of law—never mind of fact—and on questions of danger, when a representative cannot cross-examine a doctor and arguments cannot be put before the board on points of law, which are so intricate that it may take the commissioner a whole day in order to consider them. The board was set up to do a job and it must be required to do it properly.
I pay tribute to the Martins, to all those who were concerned with the petition, to those who have helped, and, to my surprise, to the News of the World, which enabled the petition to gain such momentum, to the Leicester Mercury, and Radio Leicester. I pay tribute to all those who have helped with the petition. But they cannot achieve results without the help of this House.
This small Bill will go a modest way towards remedying an injustice. The time must go when a child who has only one limb is not sufficiently disabled for his parents to receive an allowance. Above all, those who fight against their disabilities and succeed must not be penalised as a result. A society which does that demands change. The Bill is a modest start. I trust that the House will be good enough to grant leave for it to be introduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Tarn Dalyell, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Michael Fidler, Mr. Grimond, Dr. Miller, Lieut.-Col. Colin Mitchell, Mr. Ernie Money, and Sir John Peel.

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the rules relating to attendance allowances and the procedure of the Attendance Allowance Board, presented accordingly and read the First time ; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th May and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 9

TRANSITIONAL GRANT OF CERTAIN NEW AUTHORITIES

'The Secretary of State shall for the year 1974–75 only make to each metropolitan county and to the non-metropolitan counties of Avon, Cleveland and Humberside a transitional grant for the purpose of assisting such new county authorities in the provision of building or renting office accommodation, furnishings and equipment'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: This is an eminently reasonable request to make to the Government because it involves, after all, a once-and-for-all payment in what is a once-and-for-all expenditure for the new metropolitan county authorities.
The new metropolitan counties and the three new non-metropolitan counties have what we consider to be a completely unreasonable burden in the initial provision of accommodation for their staffs. The existing counties have the advantage of their own established buildings. Many of the existing counties, such as Durham, for instance, have magnificent county halls where, in a great number of cases, rather than being subject to increasing pressure many are being relieved of pressure because the counties are contracting rather than expanding.
It may well be argued that some of the existing counties, because of the new geographical borders of the new non-metropolitan counties, may wish to relocate their county headquarters. But I would strongly contest that wish. In any event, even in the case of a county which finds that its existing headquarters is far removed from the new geographical centre, it has at least the advantage of great realisable assets, which is something which the new metropolitan counties do not have.
In addition to the problem of making immediate provision for their staffs, the new metropolitan counties must also make provision for the police and fire services. The allocation for locally-determined schemes is very small—certainly for the Tyne-Wear county, in which it is hardly enough to meet existing commitments. I doubt very much whether that does not apply also to the other metropolitan county authorities. This means that the cost of providing accommodation for the staffs of the new metropolitan counties would have to be met from revenue, which compounds the problem.
I can speak with authority about only one area, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will speak about other metropolitan counties. I speak with some authority about the new Tyne and Wear metropolitan county. It has had a dreadful problem in finding office accommodation anywhere. That is fairly well spread out in a number of buildings and it is a costly proposition. The staff have one piece of temporary office accommodation which is costing £52,000 per year. They also have what I would call semi-permanent accommodation at Sandyford House, which they have rented for five years. The rent of that accommodation for eight months of this year is £193,150. There are two other buildings fairly close in which there are staff and the rent for three months for those two buildings is £67,350. In a full year, therefore, the cost of renting buildings for the Tyne and Wear staff will be £611,125.
The new Tyne and Wear authority has had something of a bonus in that it has been able to purchase for £300,000 the old NCB headquarters at Ashington. Mercifully the necessary adaptations to the building will be reasonably small. The fire service in the Tyne and Wear area will adapt a temporary building at a cost of £56,400.
To add to the costs which I have mentioned, the furnishing, fuel and lighting for the next year will be £181,600. Further, the unfortunate ratepayers of the new authority will be lumbered this year with a bill of £1,149,100. That is to get the new authority off the ground.
I think that I have established firmly a case for the Tyne and Wear authority. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will establish equally strong cases for

other authorities. I anticipate that other Members will speak about the three newly created non-metropolitan counties.
I think that I have said sufficient to persuade the Government that this is a worthwhile new clause which they should not have any difficulty in accepting. If I were insisting that a new clause should be accepted which would burden the Government with an annual expenditure, I could understand that the right hon. Gentleman would want to resist its inclusion. As I have said, this is a once-and-for-all payment. I hope that the Government will give it sympathetic consideration.

Dame Irene Ward: Tyne and Wear will much appreciate the points whioh have been put forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown). I find that in general Governments find it awfully difficult to adopt a particular case. They are good at dealing with an overall plan which fits into their concept—for example, when we were told yesterday what they would do about the city centres. Governments are not so good at dealing with the matters which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman.
We should have thought out this matter before. I have said on several occasions relating to other aspects concerning the North that during the last war the North was allowed nothing because the assessment was that it was no good to give it anything because it was more than likely to be bombed. That assessment happened to be wrong. No one is complaining about the assessment because it was the correct assessment at the time. However, when we begin a new local government operation we should not be faced with a situation in which Tyne and Wear will not be in a position to build some of the fine buildings which have been built in other areas. It would not be right for the authority to be faced with that expenditure when the Government have decided, for good or ill, that we shall have a reorganisation of local government.
I am worried that my right hon. Friend does not appear to have realised the difficulties which will arise when authorities have to find suitable accommodation. I do not see why authorities such as Tyne and Wear should have to put up with such difficulties. It was right that


from the national point of view of winning the war that the North had to put up with all sorts of difficulties because of its geographical situation, but I do not see why, when we are starting something which is new, we should have to put up with inefficient, crowded or unsatisfactory accommodation. Those of us who represent areas in the North will expect action from the Government.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I agree with the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have not fully grasped the problems which face the counties which are being established by the local government reorganisation. The House has spent a lot of time on that reorganisation. Some areas have had little change and they accepted it willingly. Other areas have had substantial change and they have been extremely unwilling to accept it.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the problems facing a new county which has to start from scratch. I expect that hon. Members will have seen the article which appeared in The Times on 21st January about the building or renting of office accommodation. The article referred to the impact on the office market last year resulting from heavy demand in provincial cities, much of that demand resulting from the restructuring of local government. Apart from accommodation, there is the need to acquire furnishings and equipment. In that regard great difficulty has been experienced.
There is also the difficulty, which I have tried to raise with the right hon. Gentleman over some months, about the staffing of the new authorities and the appointment of senior officers. The appointment of those officers at inflated salaries has aroused a great deal of anxiety. On 25th October I had an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. He said:
The determination of salaries for chief officers is a matter for local authorities— … and … the Pay Board."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 633.)

So great has the concern become about the appointments of senior officers that on 20th December the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House admitted in response to an inquiry from myself that the Government were finding that local government reorganisation was resulting in some local authorities greatly expanding the size of their bureaucracies. The right hon. Gentleman later said:
expectations have gone wrong … in connection with staffing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1729.]
Such matters are placing a burden on the ratepayers of the new authorities.
In an attempt to find out what the Government were prepared to do about the matter, I asked about estimates which were made for the new authorities. The right hon. Gentleman, on 10th December 1973, said that £15 million was included in the relevant expenditure forecasts for 1974–75 to take account of the cost of establishing new authorities and of paying new members' attendance allowances. He went on to say that the forecasts were prepared nationally and not on an authority-by-authority basis.
4.0 p.m.
I probed the matter further. On 15th January I asked him how the £15 million was broken down between the cost of establishing the new authorities and paying the new members' attendance allowances. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the local authority associations, in discussions with his Department, had produced a broad overall assessment of cost and this was not broken down into separate parts.
That is so vague that I do not think that the Department is thoroughly seized of the problem. This vagueness was repeated yesterday in the rate support grant, where in Annex B on page 9 there is merely the mention that
Particular provision has been made, where appropriate, for additional costs arising from local government reorganisation".
We do not even know what is covered by "where appropriate". We do not know what sum is being made available. We do not know how it is being divided up between authorities or on what basis it is being divided up between authorities. The right hon. Gentleman must explain more fully.
In answer to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who asked
What special measures has the Secretary of State in mind to help those county authorities whose provision has been drastically cut in size
the Secretary of State said this:
… it will be necessary to look at the position county by county, but we have borne in mind the difficulties which arise when entirely new authorities are created. Some will receive an additional percentage of the total grant available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January 1974 ; Vol. 867, c. 1476.]
We are still in the dark about what sort of action the Government are prepared to take. We need reassurance.
I will now speak briefly on the question of one of the non-metropolitan counties mentioned in the clause. When Avon, where I am now a representative, began there were no premises ; the authority possessed nothing. There was not even a desk or a typewriter. The problems of setting up this authority and the costs involved have been very closely followed and documented in the local Evening Post, which from time to time has given the general public glimpses of costs.
In December there was a report about the leasing of Avon House—a large office development on the Haymarket—at a rental of £100,000 a year plus rates and a service charge of £26,000. This month we are told that a further phase of the Copthall development there is to be rented at a cost of £250,000 a year plus rates, and it is freely reported that the cash situation will mean that the Avon accounts will be in the red in January.
I have heard only today that a report is going to the council tomorrow asking for overdraft facilities to borrow up to £5 million—it must be borne in mind that this will be at interest rates of approximately 14 per cent. to 17 per cent.—to cover expenditure in the next five months. The whole thing appears to be proving far more expensive than was at first thought, because my understanding is that only about seven to 10 days previously the discussions were centring round a sum of about £3 million and it has now risen to £5 million.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what support we are to get? It is a great tragedy that probably the Minister's mind is now made up on the support we are to have. I submit that his mind has been made up on inadequate information.
The Secretary of State talks about looking at things county by county. I believe that we should have had more chance to explain our position before a decision was taken. Only yesterday I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State asking when he would see a deputation of Members of Parliament and civic leaders from the County of Avon to put this problem to him.
The Government insisted on Avon, and many Bristolians are beginning to ask what was the point of reorganisation ; what benefit are we supposed to be getting from it? They can see no benefit. The Government, having willed the existence of the new authority, should at least will the means to get it off the ground.
I have quoted the Minister's words at him before. I will repeat them. When he opened Avon House he described the new county as "a bonny bouncing baby". Bristolians feel that they have been left holding the baby. I ask the Minister to give the new county a good start. We would like things to be ship-shape and Bristol fashion, and I say to the Minister, "Please do not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar."

Mr. John Wells: I want to address myself to you, Mr. Speaker, rather than to the matter under discussion. The House has become more and more a specialist forum for more and more specialist debates. This afternoon we are debating a highly boring, tedious and specialist matter—[Hon. Members: "No."]—though it may be very interesting to the 12 hon. Members besides myself who are present.
We are told that this is a matter of grass roots democracy. The Liberal Party keeps telling us that Liberals are the people of the grass roots democracy. There are no Liberal Members present. There are six members of the Liberal Party, four of them on, as it were, the shadow pay roll. There are six members of my party present, two of them on the real pay roll. There are 12 hon. Members in all.
I know that it is out of order to refer to the Gallery, but looking through the back of my head I can count a good many more than 12 people up there. Looking in front of me I can count about six reporters, although two of them are on the pay roll of the OFFICIAL REPORT.


The point I seek to make to you, Mr. Speaker, is that through your Conference which deals with the affairs of this House we should review our procedures for dealing with Measures of this sort—they are of great importance but are purely technical and are of only limited interest—and change things.
I am not speaking from a constituency point of view. The reorganisation of local government in my part of the world is small compared with what the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) has just said about his part of the world. I quite appreciate that the new County of Avon is a matter of great importance to the hon. Gentleman and his area. To us in our part of the world the reorganisation is not so vast. I am very concerned about where the House is going and what is to be the position in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude. I do not think that he is addressing his argument to the new clause. He has made a reference to the Conference over which I am presiding. That is a conference about election to the House, not about how the House conducts its affairs. How the House conducts its affairs is for the Select Committee on Procedure. If the hon. Gentleman has any further remarks to make, he should address them to the new clause.

Mr. Wells: In conclusion, I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure will read tomorrow's Hansard.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: May I on behalf of my colleagues welcome the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) to our deliberations. It is not often that we see him here. Whenever he is here he endeavours to make a contribution, if only it is eating an apple on the benches. I do not take the same view as the hon. Gentleman. I know that many of my colleagues are at present engaged in a number of committees of my party upstairs considering important matters such as trying to get this country back to a more stable industrial base by bringing about a settlement of many of the things that have occurred.
I turn to the new clause very quickly, Mr. Speaker, because I can see that I am causing some agitation. As a London

Member I listened with increasing sympathy and understanding to the case presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) and Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks). London was reorganised 10 years ago and the fears of my hon. Friends about local authorities—anxious about the increased costs, growing bureaucracy, the absence of any dramatic improvement of services to compensate at least for the dramatic increase in rates and costs—having come to pass in London, I, too, support the new clause because if the Government of the same complexion who forced upon London an unwanted reorganisation have now decided to take some action on the rest of the country they surely, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, ought to will the means to enable their own policies to be implemented.
The new clause calls for the special one-off grant to enable the new county authorities to provide buildings, furnishing and equipment so that they can discharge their duties. It is an essential requirement. My own local authority, the London borough of Bexley, is still suffering because in the London reorganisation the Government of the day failed to make the kind of provision which my hon. Friends are now requesting through the new clause. In Bexley we are still split into four town halls with an enormous extra cost thrust upon our local ratepayers. Indeed, in the first year of full authority of the new London borough there was a rate increase of about 14 per cent. due entirely to the effects of reorganisation. I have no doubt whatsoever that the rest of the country will face a similar serious financial burden as a direct result of the reorganisation.
The least that the Government can do is to accept the new clause to enable local authorities, by the grant, to try to bring together their departments into one place and to ensure that the accommodation is such that the extra costs are kept to a minimum.
I do not believe it right that the ratepayers in the rest of the country should have placed upon them the burdens that London has had to bear without the lessons of London being taken into account by the Government. The Government


can learn those lessons and take them into account if they accept the new clause, thus enabling new local authorities to start without the burden which we have had to bear in London.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) that the facts which have been aired about the effects of the existing legislation on local authorities are of great value and show the usefulness of a debate of this type. Whether one calls it "technical" or "of limited interest", it is important that the facts should be known and should be considered by the Government. I cannot say that I can be optimistic about the result, but I appreciate that the argument is that this is a once-for-all grant towards the initial costs of office accommodation, furnishing and equipment due to the difficulties of a number of new county councils.

Mr. John Wells: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, however interesting this may be to a handful of hon. Members' that it might be better if the procedures of the House were altered in some way so that debates of this sort do not occupy the Chamber at great cost to the nation and with the negligible attention of hon. Members?

Mr. Page: It is important that all aspects of local government should be discussed in the House since local government is the second biggest spender of national income. It is important that these problems should be examined.
I was a little piqued when I was told by my hon. Friend and Opposition hon. Members that I did not realise what was happening or that I did not know anything about the subject, especially by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks). I opened the Avon County Council offices on the 4th August. Having seen those offices, I cannot say that I would be happy at the quality of the accommodation, but at least it is adequate. In my frequent visits to other parts of the country I have discussed the problem of the standard of accommodation with other county councils. The position is that all new

local authorities will face some special administrative problems in their first year, which are likely to require some degree of special expenditure.
Even an authority, whether county or district, which inherits unchanged geographical areas from its predecessor will have a different range of services to cope with and the period of transition will involve a degree of dislocation and expense. Boundary changes may involve further transitional problems concerning either a sudden expansion of services over a wider area or contraction of services within a smaller area. Indeed, strong representations have been made by new county councils, which will inherit a reduced area from predessors, about the difficulty in the short term of scaling down their services in proportion to loss of population.
There are problems not only for those who have been selected for assistance in the amendment but problems for almost all the new local authorities during the transitional period.
The new clause singles out a particular class of authority as being deserving of special treatment, the once-for-all payment this year to help them over the transitional period. The problem of Avon, for example, and some other authorities, is that they will not, for general purpose property, be the legatees of existing authorities. On the other hand Humber-side and West Yorkshire, both included in the new clause, directly or indirectly, will be general purpose legatees of the East Riding and West Riding County Councils respectively. There are different problems even for those authorities included in the new clause.
It would be impossible to give special transitional grants to one class of authority without doing justice to others. That was the principle on which the Government worked in deciding, in consultation with local authority associations, the amount of rate support grant. The best we have been able to do is to include in the forecast of relevant expenditure on a percentage of which the rate support grant is paid a national expenditure total for next year in respect of the transitional period.
The figure was raised by the local authority associations. We asked for their views about what would be a


reasonable figure to include in relevant expenditure for the transitional period. It includes more—£15 million has been mentioned—than perhaps merely office accommodation, but it is intended to cover, in an overall way, the expense of the transition of local government from the existing authorities to the new authorities on 1st April.
It is reasonable to say that reorganisation has not increased the total sphere of local government administration. Fewer functions than before will be administered. It is true that they will be administered by different authorities but they will be administered through 400 authorities where 1,400 exist at present.
We have reduced, or should have reduced, administration by the reorganisation of local government, but I appreciate that the transition stage, setting up new authorities, means moving house, which is expensive. The rate support grant, based on the relevant expenditure, which included the global sum of £15 million for this, will, I hope, be sufficient when the distribution is announced, which will be as soon as possible. The formulae have of course been announced.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is not a question of the new metropolitan counties having to move house. I hope that the Minister is not missing the point. They are in fact in the position of first-time house buyers. In view of what has been said about first-time buyers, he might think in the same terms about these councils.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is right to pick me up about that. I agree that in many cases they will be "buying a home" for the first time. But I would ask the districts, who should have some accommodation to spare, to assist in these cases. In many areas, they have done so. Some counties have been able to use accommodation provided by the districts. That is right, because, if the rate support grant figure when distributed is not sufficient, the cost will fall on the precept made by the counties on the districts. So it will be to the benefit of the districts to assist. I am sure that ratepayers will be grateful if their districts and their counties can get together in that way.
Without the reorganisation of local government finance under the Bill, Avon and many other counties would have been

much worse off. I can assure the hon. Member for Bristol, South that Avon and its districts should, overall, get a significantly greater share of grant than if we had kept the 1966 Act in force for another year. The same goes for the metropolitan counties. In fact, under the new formulae, it will be a good thing for them to replace the 1966 Act with this Bill.
I cannot hold out any hope for a special grant. We will keep a close eye on whether the distribution is sufficient for county authorities. I have been only too willing to discuss this with the authorities concerned. The hon. Member for Bristol, South has asked to bring a deputation to me on the matter and I have already said that I am only too happy to receive it. I have discussed this with other counties.
I do not finally close the door ; I simply say that I cannot do anything about it at present. But during the next months, let us discuss the position and see whether it is a serious matter, in which case I could possibly make representations in some other way.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new clause was supported by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown)? All that my right hon. Friend has done is talk about Avon, about which he seems to know quite a lot. He has not addressed one remark to the problem on Tyne and Wear. As for the reference to dealing with the matter "county by county", Tyne and Wear is two counties. Will he not address any comment at all to this point? It is impolite to the hon. Member, who did a very good service to our area, when he is not really affected himself. I am not going to vote for the Government, let me tell you that.

Mr. Page: I regret it if my hon. Friend considers me discourteous. I acknowledged, I thought generously, the facts brought forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West. I know the district quite well and I have discussed these difficulties with the county and with representatives from that area. There was no intention of discourtesy. I picked on the hon. Member for Bristol, South because he was sitting glaring at me in front and I thought that I had better


calm him down. My hon. Friend is behind me, and I do not always see her.

Mr. Oakes: The comments of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) are understandable. The Minister spoke of authorities coping by scratching around the districts for accommodation—a most unseemly way for new councils to begin life. There are some areas—I understand that the area of the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) is one—in which there is no accommodation which could be taken from the districts. Tyne and Wear authority has had to establish new premises in Newcastle at considerable expense. I can therefore understand the hon. Lady being unwilling to vote with her own party when her constituency is affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) graphically described the difficulties of the new Avon county. I should like to talk to the Minister about the county that we know best, the new metropolitan county of Merseyside. That is in the same difficult position as Tyne and Wear. It has had to go to the Liverpool Daily Post and Echo to hire office premises. It will have to hire furniture, equipment, typewriters and, presumably, computer time. This is all costly. Authorities might be financing these things out of revenue at the moment, but in the long term they will have to precept for this expenditure.
In his closing remarks the Minister gave me some encouragement when he said that the Government will be sympathetic if the plight of these new authorities becomes evident. But the clause says that that plight is evident now and that aid must be given now since we are getting nearer to 1st April, the magic date when the new metropolitan counties and the three non-metropolitan counties mentioned in the new clause will have to start their statutory duties. If they are already in these dire straits concerning office equipment, furnishings and so on, surely now is the time for the House to decide that since we created them—the metropolitan counties are certainly creatures of the Government—we shall start them off in life with the equipment necessary to carry out their duties.
4.30 p.m.
The clause is not concerned with the frills of local government, with the maces, the council chambers and the members' retiring rooms. It is about the bread-and-butter issues of typewriters, desks, copying equipment and all the things that a local authority needs to get on with its work. There is a big difference between the authorities mentioned in the clause and those in being. I instance the case of Lancashire, an authority I know well because my wife served upon it, and that of Cheshire, on which she now serves. These authorities will face difficulties but they have a county hall, office equipment, computers and the wherewithal to continue, although they may be much smaller authorities than they were previously.
However, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, Avon and West Midlands all have to start from scratch. They are in a very different position from the luckier county council, the shire county or possibly, to a limited degree, the counties of Humberside and West Yorkshire which have better provision in that they at least have premises which they inherited from shire counties. The Minister knows that we spent this morning in Committee discussing an order which will transfer the administration of superannuation funds from the districts to the county councils. As I said this morning, most of the county councils are concerned that they have no computers to operate that scheme. They will have to go back to the district councils to borrow computers to carry out the essential work of compiling statistics for the funds.
This is a reasonable clause. It asks the Government, on a once-for-all basis for the year 1974–75 only, to provide the wherewithal for the babies they created—the new metropolitan counties—and the three non-metropolitan counties which did not exist before the Local Government Act came into operation. Those authorities desperately need these facilities. The Minister well knows how much Merseyside in particular needs them. Merseyside has no district council accommodation that it can inherit in Liverpool, and Liverpool is the obvious centre for the new Merseyside County Council.
It is unseemly for the authorities to have to start off by trapesing round the district councils trying to locate spare


rooms. It is also far more costly to have office accommodation scattered all over the county, with all that that involves, instead of having it located in one building. If a central building is to be used, however, it will have to be rented because the authorities will have no capital to buy their new town hall. Even if they had the capital, the Government probably would not let them build it because of the emergency restrictions and the state of the economy. Therefore, a central building must be rented, probably at very high cost. There is also the hire of furnishings and equipment.
Although I welcome what the Minister said in the concluding part of his speech

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[4.36 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkinson, Norman
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murray, Ronald King


Austick, David
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Beith, A. J.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orbach, Maurice


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooson, Emlyn
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Horam, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hunter, Adam
Pardoe, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Janner, Greville
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice. Giles


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts. Rt. Hn. Goronwyf Caernarvon)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Lamond James
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Latham, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lawson, George
Steel, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leonard, Dick
Stott, Roger


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taverne, Dick


Delargy, Hugh
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
McBride, Nell
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Varley, Eric G.


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacDonald, Mrs. Margo
Wainwright, Edwin


Dunn, James A,
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wallace, George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John
Ward, Dame Irene


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Weitzman, David


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Marsden, F.
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Foot, Michael
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Freud, Clement
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

that he will see how things go, I feel that that will be too late. The time to act is now, the Bill to do it is this Bill, so that the provision may come into operation before 1st April 1974. I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Tynemouth and all hon. Members who represent the new counties created by the Government to come with us into the Lobby in support of this once-for-all grant to help the new counties as they start off in life.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 173.

NOES


Adley, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Onslow, Cranley


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Actor, John
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Haselhurst, Alan
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Robert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. Jamea


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Rost, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sainsbury, Timothy


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby;


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chapman, Sydney
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mlngton)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Soref, Harold


Churchill, W. S.
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
Kirk, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Cockeram, Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Coombs, Derek
Lamont, Norman
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Cooper, A. E.
Lane, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sutcliffe, John


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tebbit, Norman


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Loveridge, John
Temple, John M.


Dixon, Piers
Luce, R. N.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thomas, John Stradllng (Monmouth)


Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McLaren, Martin
Trew, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Tugendhat, Christopher


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Walder, David (Clltheroe)


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fidler, Michael
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walters, Dennis


Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Foster, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fowler, Norman
Moate, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fry, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wiggin, Jerry


Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)
Monro, Hector
Wilkinson, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Winterton, Nicholas


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mudd, David



Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Michael Cocks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct that the names printed above new Clause 10 are the only ones that were handed in? You will see that both names are those of Opposition Front Bench Members, and in virtually every other case there are three names to our amendments. I wonder whether this is a printer's error. Could it be checked with a view to its being corrected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Morton): I am prepared to have this

matter checked, but I have no reason to think that other names were handed in.

New Clause 10

OFFICERS AND SERVANTS OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXECUTIVES NOT TO BE DISQUALIFIED FROM SERVING AS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ON CERTAIN AUTHORITIES

'After subsection (2) of section 81 of the Local Government Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following subsection:
(2)A. In subsection (4) of section 80 the words from 'officer or servant' where they


first occur to 'Transport Act 1962)' shall be omitted.

(2)B. Nothing in section 80(1)(a) above shall operate to disqualify—

(a) any person for being elected or being a member of the Greater London Council by reason of his being an officer or servant of, or of a subsidiary (within the meaning of the Transport Act 1962) of, the London Transport Executive
(b) any person for being elected ot being a member of the council of a county by reason of his being an officer or servant of, or of a subsidiary (within the meaning of the Transport Act 1962) of, the Passenger Transport Executive for an area which is coterminous with the area of that county." '—[Mr. Oakes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With new Clause 10 it will be convenient to discuss new Clause 11—Officers and servants of London Transport Executive not to be disqualified from serving on Greater London Council.
We can also discuss the following Government amendments:
No. 40 in Schedule 7, page 65, line 40, at end insert:
'9A. In section 81 of the Local Government Act 1972 (exceptions to provisions about disqualification in section 80) after subsection (3) shall be inserted the following subsection:—

"(3A) Section 80(1)(a) above shall not operate to disqualify any person for being elected of being the chairman, vice-chairman, deputy chairman or an alderman or councillor of the Greater London Council by reason of his being employed by the London Transport Executive or any subsidiary of theirs."'.

No. 42, in page 65, line 41 leave out 'the Local Government Act 1972' and insert 'that Act'.
No. 53, in the Title, line 16, after 'amendments', insert 'of or'.

Mr. Oakes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) for his convenient and timely point of order. I do not know why his name is missing from this new clause. It may have been an oversight when submitting the clause because, as he suggests, his name has usually been included.
I understand from the Government amendments that at least the substance

of new Clause 11 has been agreed to by the Government. This concerns London. London Transport Executive was concerned whether its employees could be members of the Greater London Council because of the effects of Section 81 of the Local Government Act 1972. The Minister for Local Government and Development gave an undertaking in Committee that he would look into this. As always, he has honoured his undertaking and has produced an amendment which deals more satisfactorily than my new clause with the position in London.
Although the Government have conceded the position in London, they have not done so for authorities elsewhere. The same problems will still arise when employees of a passenger transport executive may be prevented from serving on the relevant county council. We have discussed this on many occasions and one Friday we spent most of the day debating a motion on this subject introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) dealing with the overall question of the rights of employees of councils to serve as members if they were below a certain grade. Obviously, one would not imagine that a town clerk or a borough treasurer would wish to do so.
There seems to be no reason why a clerk or a bus driver or conductor should not sit as a member of a council. The 1972 Local Government Act, unintentionally rather than wilfully, disfranchised a further section of the community from sitting as members of a local authority. They were employees of passenger transport authorities. The Government have conceded the position regarding London, which I greatly welcome, because it would have been a glaring anomaly if the Bill had taken away existing rights of employees of the London Passenger Transport Executive who were serving on the authority. However, I regret that the Government have not seen fit to amend the law generally with regard to passenger transport employees throughout the country, as envisaged in my clause.
I shall not ask the House to divide on the clause, possibly out of gratitude for Amendment No. 40 and for the Government's acceptance of the substance of New Clause 11. However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter. I do not


think that the Government intend for one moment to prevent bus drivers, conductors and inspectors serving on county councils and local authorities. I am certain from what the right hon. Gentleman said, in particular his replies to debates, that this is an accident of the Bill. With transport having been brought under the control of county councils, these other spheres of local government have been dragged into the net and employees have been deprived of serving on local authorities, because in theory there is a possibility that a passenger transport executive would decide that the county council would personally appoint each bus driver and conductor. That could not happen in practice.
I ask the Government to look into the whole question of disqualification of the more ordinary employees of local authorities from serving on them, which neither side of the House wants. Possibly it should be dealt with in a separate Bill. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, tabled in accordance with his undertaking in Committee, which will at least relieve the position in London.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said. I have in mind colleagues who can now stand for election to the metropolitan district authority in the Tyne-Wear area but cannot stand for election to the county authority in that area, for the reason which my hon. Friend has mentioned. That is ludicrous. There is no reason why they should be denied the opportunity of standing for the metropolitan county.
I understood that in Committee we had reached an understanding that if we could broaden the range to enable such people to stand we might need to consider that they might not be able to vote on certain subjects. It is wrong to prevent those who could make a valuable contribution from doing so. In this day and age we should look at the matter again.

Mr. Graham Page: So far as the clause deals with the London Transport Executive and the Greater London Council, the ground is covered by Government Amendment No. 40, which I shall come to in a moment. But so far as it seeks

to extend the same principle to passenger transport executives outside London, the situation is different.
The existing disqualification rule applicable to employees should continue to operate here, as elsewhere in local government, until the Redcliffe-Maud Committee has reported. What I said in Committee is still relevant. The Redcliffe-Maud Committee has to consider:
qualification or disqualification for service as a member of a local authority or of any of its committees.
That clearly includes disqualification by virtue of employment. I accept that part of the clause which refers to the London Transport Executive, because it merely clarifies the existing law. That part is repeated in new Clause 11, and I have tried to put it in clear language in Amendment No. 40. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if we substitute the parliamentary draftsman's edition for his own in new Clause 11.
In Committee I undertook to look again at the need for a provision specifically declaring that employees of the London Transport Executive were not disqualified for membership of the Greater London Council. The legal advice I received after the Committee remained exactly the same as I had previously, namely that the provision is strictly unnecessary, but I realise that the employees concerned had also received legal advice which was exactly contrary. There is, therefore, a risk. In these circumstances I am willing to resort to the dubious device of a declaratory provision, if it will satisfy all parties. I shall ask the House to accept it when I move Amendment No. 40.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 53 are purely consequential on Amendment No. 40.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 12

RATING OF CROWN PROPERTY

'The General Rate Act 1967 as amended shall extend to every hereditament occupied or used by any department of Government, or occupied or used for any public purpose, notwithstanding that some may belong to or be vested in Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, or any officer or department of state, or any other public officer, authority, or body ; and the department, officer, authority or body occupying, using or having the management of or control over the same shall be deemed to


be the occupier for rating purposes'.—[Air. Oakes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause is on the very old question of Crown rating. Crown property—by which I mean not only Windsor Castle and the property under the ownership of Her Majesty the Queen, but also any Government property, and any property held by nationalised industries, with few exceptions—is rated in an entirely different way from the ordinary rating system. All other industrial property is rated by a valuation officer. A valuation is fixed which can be argued between the owners of a property and the local authority involved. The matter can go to the valuation court to be argued, and ultimately to the Lands Tribunal, if there is a dispute between the local authority and the occupier of the premises. For Crown property the compensation figure in lieu of rateable value is not fixed by the district valuer, but by the Treasury. There is no appeal to any court or body against the figure which the Treasury fixes.
Local authorities have long felt aggrieved at this situation, which has continued for hundreds of years. I understand, from historical research, that it arose as long ago as the time when a petition was presented from the villages surrounding Hampton Court Palace. When the palace was being built they were aggrieved at the fact that when the men building it were laid off the parish rates had to suffer, by providing what was then the equivalent of supplementary benefit for the builders who were no longer being paid. It was a grievous burden on the parish. The then monarch gave a grant of £50 to the parish council for the relief of those labourers. From those innocent seventeenth century beginnings the whole edifice of Crown rating has arisen and persists even to this day.
5.0 p.m.
It is interesting that 100 years ago, on 30th March 1874, the Minister's right hon. and deceased Friend, Mr. Disraeli, told the House that he would shortly be able to give a definite reply on the anomaly of Crown rating. We on this side of the House have indeed been patient. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us, 100 years later, that the Bill

is the most convenient vehicle to get rid of this ancient, anachronistic anomaly of our rating system, which bears grievously at times on local authorities.
Local authorities are understandably irritated by the fact that there is no appeal against a Treasury decision. The Treasury fixes the sum and the local authority has to accept it.
In the days when the Post Office was under the control of the House, and Goon-hilly Down in Cornwall was therefore Crown property, it was rated at a ludicrously small sum. After the passage of the Post Office Corporation Act, about £40,000 was added to that rateable value, when a proper valuation was made by the valuation officer on its ceasing to be Crown property. There must be many other instances throughout the country.
Some of the effects are seen in my constituency at a level of local government that we rarely discuss in the House, important though it is, the parish council. In my constituency there is the parish of Halewood, within which there is a Ford Motor Company factory. It is probably one of the richest parishes in the country, because its 1p rate when levied on the Ford Motor Company produces sufficient for the parish to have two parish halls and all sorts of amenities. Yet other parishes within my constituency and within the same rural district of Whiston, one of them, Cronton, having a coal mine and another, Bold, having an electricity power station as well as a coal mine, are unable to gain benefit from those Crown properties, apart from the grant they receive from the rural district council, a subvention paid to the rating authority because the properties are not rated in the ordinary way. As a result there are great inequalities, which are nonsensical in this day and age.
There is no reason why all property, industrial, commercial and otherwise, whether or not in the ownership of the Crown, should not be rated in the ordinary way by the valuation officer. Valuation officers have very difficult rating assessments to carry out today in regard to aspects of industrial property that is not nationalised and is not Government property. They do their difficult calculations successfully. I see no reason why this major Bill, which will affect local government for a number of decades, should not be the instrument whereby the


anachronism of Crown rating is abolished, so that each property in each local authority area would be valued in the ordinary way, and at least the local authority would feel that it had been properly dealt with and had a body to which it could appeal.
There should be no loss to the nationalised industries. If there was a loss, it would mean that they were being unfairly rated now. Local authorities would have the satisfaction of knowing that they could appeal to a proper court, as they can with regard to any other valuation of other hereditaments in their areas.
A hundred years after Disraeli's promise to the House, I ask the Government to give sympathetic consideration to doing away with this anachronism so that all properties, whether Crown properties or not, pay their just and fair share of rates to help the local authority in whose area they are situated.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) gave us some very interesting historical facts. He said that an amendment was promised 100 years ago, on 30th March 1874. Perhaps I should tell him to wait the hundred years, and that then we shall reconsider his amendment.
I cannot go even as far as that. The purpose of the clause, which I acknowledge is sponsored by local authority associations, is to make the Crown liable to rates on the property it occupies. As I read the clause, it would not affect properties such as those belonging to the National Coal Board, including the coal mines in part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, because the board pays on a formula in the same way as the gas and electricity undertakings and other public enterprises do.
I know the great advantage which the parish of Halewood derives from the presence of the motor manufacturers there. It was only on Monday of this week that, very early in the morning in order to catch a plane for a speaking engagement, I drove through Halewood and the village of Hale, of which the hon. Gentleman is a Freeman as a result of the 1972 Local Government Act.
If the clause were accepted we should also have to repeal Section 37 of the General Rates Act 1967, which deals with

entries in the valuation lists of property which is occupied by the Crown and on which contributions in lieu of rates are paid.
Currently, property occupied by the Crown is not liable to rates, though the Crown makes a contribution in lieu of rates calculated on the basis of a valuation placed on the property by the Treasury Valuer. The valuation itself is not subject to review by the courts. During the consultations on the Green Paper on the finance of local government the local authority associations were unanimously of the view that Crown property should be assessed and rated in the same way as other property. But in any case the associations considered that the assessment of Crown property should be open to appeal in the valuation courts and the Lands Tribunal in the same manner as other assessments. They considered that this change would be facilitated if responsibility for making the assessments were transferred from the Treasury Valuer to the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue. I agree that if these suggestions were adopted, the present delay in the revaluation of Crown property, in the view of the local authority associations themselves, would be avoided. Certainly, that delay is an inconvenience, to say the least, to local authorities.
I know that local authorities have in the past consistently criticised the arrangements for contributions in lieu of rates on Crown property, but in practice the number of individual complaints about valuations placed upon Crown properties by the Treasury Valuer has been minimal.
The procedure is perhaps illogical, but it seems to work quite fairly. The case hitherto made by the local authorities in support of the full rating of Crown property is based mainly upon the proposition that the system should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair. In practice, it seems to be fair, and the Crown makes by way of contribution in lieu of rates the same sort of payment that it would make if the property were subject to rates.
This was shown in the recent change of status of the Post Office. In some cases the local authorities did not do so well out of Post Office property as they had when the Treasury Valuer was valuing it.


Moreover, for security reasons it is not possible to bring all Crown properties, including defence establishments, within the present rating system. For these reasons the rating of Crown property has been resisted not only by this Government but by previous Governments of different parties.
We have not casually disregarded the representations made to us by the local authority associations. We have looked to see, first, whether there is a case for altering the system of valuation and, secondly, whether there are any grounds for the complaint that there is no appeal. We have sympathy with the point made by local authority associations and by the hon. Gentleman that there is no appeal. I am considering whether we can provide any form of arbitration or review if the contribution in lieu of rates seems to be unfair in any particular case. Such a procedure would be extra-statutory. It does not need statutory provision. I give the assurance that we are looking into it, although I cannot give an undertaking how the consideration will turn out in the end. The matter is not being disregarded, and I am in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about the absence of any form of appeal.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I appreciate what the Minister has said about the inquiry that is being made into the possibility of an appeal procedure. May I go a little wider, to ask whether comparable consideration can be given to the related matter of agricultural rerating which, for understandable reasons, is not raised formally by an amendment but which still worries local authorities. A good deal of agricultural land is also Crown property. Local authorities are concerned about this, although the difficulties are well understood.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The operative word is "hereditament", but I am prepared to overlook that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reply.

Mr. Graham Page: With the permission of the House, I merely say not in this Bill and not by this clause.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: It could be dealt with otherwise than by the clause. I am very encouraged by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the review that the Government

are making of the amount of contribution in lieu of rates paid by Government Departments and nationalised industries to local authorities.
The figures, which I have just received, concerning the satellite station in Cornwall, are sufficiently dramatic to give to the House. The valuation placed by the Treasury in 1969 on the Goonhilly Downs earth satellite station was £17,135. When the Post Office became a corporation and the satellite station was valued in the normal way, the valuation given to it was £40,070. Similar changes must have been repeated throughout the country. I therefore welcome what the Minister said about the Government's looking again at this question, and I ask them to do so urgently.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there are very few complaints, but when one is faced with a fait accompli and there is no one to whom to complain there are no complaints. The local authority cannot go to the valuation court or the Lands Tribunal. It must sit back and accept what the Treasury says. There is no formal channel for complaint unless it is to the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to complain about the conduct of civil servants in undervaluing a particular property. To say that there have not been complaints from local authorities is not a valid reason for saying that the procedure is satisfactory.
It is rare for all local authority bodies to be united on one object, but they are certainly united on this one. The towns and the countryside together all want assistance. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument about security at Army and Air Force bases. If the Government are not prepared to accept the cause, will they consider introducing a small Bill to give a right of appeal to the courts. It would be highly satisfactory to the local authorities concerned to know that there was an independent arbitrator to decide their claims.
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman went through Halewood and Hale. He knows that he will always be royally received in those two parishes because of their deliverance at his hands from the fate they feared under the Local Government Bill.
Many parishes are losing out. This may not arise directly from the clause, but it


arises indirectly. In addition to considering appeals, I should like the Government to find a way in which parish councils could, directly and not through the district council, receive some form of assistance from the nationalised industries by way of a subvention in the same way as they can claim a parish rate from the industries established within the parish. Industries that create the greatest environmental difficulties in an area are sometimes the ones that do not pay a penny to the upkeep of the parish.
As the Government are prepared to look at the figures, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

ELEMENTS OF RATE SUPPORT GRANTS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 22, at beginning insert 'Except as provided by subsection (3A) below.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, it will also be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Page: These amendments follow the undertaking I gave in Committee to consider introducing an amendment to enable the Secretary of State to provide in regulations for a proportion of the needs element otherwise payable to a non-metropolitan county to be paid instead to a non-metropolitan district. This does not indicate any intention of making any such regulation at present, but it is right to give the Secretary of State that power so that it may be considered as a possibility at some future date.

Mr. Oakes: I welcome these amendments introduced by the Government, as the Minister said, in accordance with undertakings given in Committee. We accept that it will be exceptional for a part of the grant to be given direct to the non-metropolitan district and not to the county council. It was to meet exceptional circumstances that in Committee we asked for the power at least to be given because the Government had no

power previously in this respect. I appreciate that in the main this will go to the non-metropolitan county, but there could be circumstances where the Government could consider giving part of the grant to the district council.

Amendment No. 3 is most welcome. The Bill said that the Government could deprive a metropolitan district council of its needs element if the resources of the county as a whole were greater than the national average. Obviously this would have borne badly on many metropolitan district councils which happened to be poor islands in comparatively rich metropolitan counties.

The fact that Amendment No. 3 appears on the Amendment Paper in the names of Government and Opposition Front Bench Members is rare indeed. This arose not because we added our names to the Government names on the amendment, but because, on the same day, we submitted the same amendment to remedy the same evil. This is the precise amendment which I sought to move in Committee when the Government, quite understandably, were fearful that the parliamentary draftsman might be able to word the amendment more felicitously. However, we were right the first time. It is sometimes a good thing that hon. Members can assert their independence and get an amendment right in such a way that both sides of the House come to the same form of words independently. All this unanimity makes the amendment highly desirable, and I welcome it, along with the others.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 4, line 34, at end insert:
'(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that such proportion as may be determined by or under the regulations of the amount which, apart from the regulations, would be payable in respect of the needs element for any year to the council of a non-metropolitan county shall, in such cases as may be determined in accordance with the regulations, be payable instead to the councils of districts situated in the county ; and any such regulations may make different provision in relation to different councils.'.
No. 3, in page 4, line 37 leave out from 'Council' to end of line 2 on page 5.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 4

VARIATION OF RATE SUPPORT GRANT ORDERS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 46, at end insert:
'(4A) If, in a case where the Secretary of State proposes to make an order under subsection (1) above in respect of any year, it appears to him that, apart from any provision made by virtue of this subsection, the effect of the order and of any other order under subsection (1) above which he considers likely to be made in respect of that year would be that the ratio between the actual aggregrate amount of the resources element for that year and the aggregate amount of the needs element for that year would be significantly different from the ratio (in this subsection referred to as "the expected ratio") between the estimated aggregate amount of the resources element for that year, as fixed by the relevant rate support grant order, and the aggregate amount of the needs element, as so fixed, he may in the order under subsection (1) above—

(a) specify as the aggregate amount of the resources element for that year such amount as, in his estimation, will secure that (taking account of the effect of any further orders likely to be made under subsection (1) above in respect of that year) the ratio which the amount so specified will bear to the aggregate amount of the needs element for that year will be the expected ratio ; and
(b) in order to secure that the total amount paid in respect of the resources element to local authorities entitled to payments in respect of that element does not exceed the amount specified as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, make provision for a corresponding variation in the amount payable to each such authority in respect of that element'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, it will also be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 28.

Mr. Page: The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State, in the course of redetermining the grant amounts for any particular year, to adjust what would otherwise have been the actual aggregate amount of the resources element, and the part of it payable to each authority, to secure that, ultimately, the ratio between the aggregate amounts of the needs and the resources elements will be the same as the ratio between the amounts of those elements originally prescribed in the rate support grant order for that year.
This, perhaps, is not an easy matter to explain in short sentences in words of one syllable, but the position is that the resources

element is calculated on the deficit in rateable value in any particular area below a standard line. To a great extent the authority itself can decide the amount of the resources element by its rate poundage. What happens is that the taxpayer comes in as ratepayer upon the deficit in rateable value in that particular area and the taxpayer comes in at the rate poundage decided by the authorities.
It was pointed out in Committee that the provisions of the Bill relating to the resources element as they stood threatened to work to the unfair disadvantage of authorities entitled to little or no resources element. The amount of the resources element payable to an authority was to be determined simply and solely by reference to its local deficiency in rateable value and its rate poundage for the year. The latter will not be known at the time of the original rate support grant order. Therefore, in distributing it we have to assume an average rate poundage.
For any authority which is not entitled to resources element because its total rateable value is above the standard line such authority may well suffer if there is a very high rate poundage so that it collects a considerable amount of resources element and unbalances the distribution of the rate support grant.
Let us suppose that a number of authorities were to set their rates unexpectedly high, whether because of over-allowance for the effects of inflation in the coming year or in the hope of accommodating a spending programme higher than could be tolerated by Government policy. The result would be to inflate the aggregate amount of the resources element. When the Secretary of State came to increase the grant total to take account of pay and price variations during the year, most of that increase would already have been pre-empted by the unexpected size of authorities' resources element entitlements, leaving little or nothing to be added to the aggregate of the needs element. In this situation the extravagant authorities which have overbid would gain at the expense of the others, and in particular of those which qualified barely if at all for resources element.
By the provisions of these amendments the Secretary of State would first consider whether the ratio of the aggregate of the needs and resources elements was,


at the end of the day, going to be significantly different from the "expected" ratio that was assumed when making the distribution of the rate support grant—that is to say, the ratio between the amounts as originally prescribed in the rate support grant order. If so, he would be able to specify in the increase order an aggregate amount of the resources element which he judged would bear the "expected" ratio to the ultimate aggregate amount of the needs element.
5.30 p.m.
If there were likely to be a further increase order for the year, which we frequently have, the Secretary of State could allow in this calculation for the effect of that further order. Obviously, it would be needlessly disruptive to local authorities' financial planning if, in a first increase order, usually laid in November or December, the Secretary of State were to restore the "expected ratio" at the current level of prices by sharply reducing the resources aggregate, only to have to increase the resources aggregate again in a second increase order related to price increases that had taken place in the last three months of the year.
Finally, to round off the job, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to translate any change he had made in the aggregate amount of the resources element into a corresponding change in each authority's entitlement.
Inevitably, the consequence will be to remove the absolute certainty which the calculation method for the resources element would otherwise have given authorities as to their entitlement for the year. As any reduction in the aggregate amount must be followed by pro rata reductions in each authority's entitlement, it may be that authorities which have shown commendable restraint in setting their rates will suffer equally with those whose rating decisions have been responsible for the threatened upsetting of the "expected ratio". But, setting that disadvantage against the advantages of being able to restrain the authority or authorities which is or are getting an unfair advantage against the others, we must put

up with that possible disadvantage of uncertainty to some authorities. The Government consider that any inequities on that score would be less serious than those which would follow from any serious distortion of the "expected ratio".
I apologise to the House if I appear to have stuck rather closely to my notes, but I think that local authorities will wish to consider what is said in support of the amendment. I hope that I have given an intelligible explanation.

Mr. Oakes: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and I think I follow what he said. I am delighted that his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) is not present in the Chamber, because he thought that it was boring when we had what in these debates is the high drama of a discussion on resources to newly created counties. What he would have thought, having listened to this debate, I shudder to think.
The one difficulty that I foresee is that of uncertainty. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has had to weigh the balance between an unfair distortion, on the one hand, and creating uncertainty, on the other.
At present, local authorities are uncertain not only about this Bill but about many other things. To add another uncertainty in future may not be regarded too happily by treasurers and local authority associations. However, we must see how it works out in future. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly given a very full statement which can be considered in detail by local authorities and their associations, but, as I say, we must see how it works out. My only regret is that some element of uncertainty, albeit small, is created to get rid of what might be an unfair distortion to a particular authority. That uncertainty may be inevitable. We abide by the amendment and will wait to see how it works out.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 7, line 1, leave out 'subsections (1), (3) and (4) above' and insert:
'the preceding provisions of this section'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 5

REDUCTION OF GRANTS IN CASE OF DEFAULT

Mr. Ronald Bray: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 7, line 24, at end insert:
(c) is of the opinion that the local authority is excessively staffed in relation to its size, functions, delegated responsibilities and agencies".
The purpose of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State power to control local authority expenditure on the staffing of the new local authorities. It has been said that the local authorities, under the previous Act, have created what is now unkindly called the greatest growth industry in the country. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development is fully aware of the abnormal limits to which certain local authorities and county councils have extended their staffing. In some cases they are employing between two and three times the number of personnel required at greatly inflated—I use that word intentionally—salaries.
My right hon. Friend has had considerable correspondence with me on this matter and has made certain points. I am sure that he will not mind if I quote from the Under-Secretary's letter to me of 30th December, in which he implies that these matters could be regulated by reference to the Pay Board. With due deference to the Minister, I draw his attention to the fact that the Pay Board may be only transitory, whereas we hope that this measure will continue for a considerable number of years. The Under-Secretary wrote:
In particular, the Board have made it clear to the local authorities that they need to be satisfied that the complements and grading of staff bear a proper relationship to the volume and level of work taken over from the old authorities.
I pose the simple question: is the Pay Board competent to determine this matter? The Department of the Environment created many of these local authorities and they should have the requisite expertise to effect this work. I refer my right hon. Friend to a quotation from the late President Harry Truman, "The buck stops here."
There is every reason for the amendment being included in the Bill. One

question may be: is the Minister competent? In this respect I draw attention to subsection (1)(a), the first words of which are "is satisfied", and (b), the first words of which are "is of opinion". The amendment starts on the same basis, "is of the opinion". I suggest that it is well within the capacity of the Department of the Environment to keep a reasonable rein on the staffing and expenditure of local authorities. As matters stand, they would put the law created by the well-known Professor Parkinson to absolute shame.
I commend the amendment to my right hon. Friend and sincerely hope that he will accept it.

Mr. Oakes: I must disappoint the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray), because the Opposition do not feel able to support the amendment. Nevertheless, it expresses quite a lot of widespread public disquiet about what may be happening as a result of local government reorganisation. At a time when we face a certain situation—I do not expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with my views on this matter—it is ironic to see advertisements for very junior posts in local authorities at salaries in excess of £50 a week compared with a particular claim that I will not attempt to discuss for fear of being ruled out of order. However, one can understand the annoyance of people who do a hard, dirty and dangerous job when comparatively easier jobs seem to be prolific.
We disagree with the hon. Gentleman because it is often too easy for those who are not connected with local government and do not, as hon. Members do, know how extremely hard local authorities work to be critical of everybody in the town hall and assume that all they do is drink tea all day—the old view of civil servants. That is not true of 99 per cent. of local authority staffs, who work extremely hard.
Because of the reorganisation of local government and the increase in size of authorities, the creation of new posts—or perhaps one could say the giving of new names to old posts—has provided a convenient method of avoiding phase 2, phase 3, or any other phase that may be introduced. There is a duty on local government authorities to prove conclusively to their electors that the new posts are necessary. That is why I disagree


with the amendment. Basically, the decision ought to be taken by electors in the area if they think that their local council is being too lavish in the appointment and payment of its officers.

Mr. Bray: I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to a point, but any action taken by the local electors must, of necessity, be historical. They will be shutting the gate after the engagement has been effected and the staff have been employed for perhaps 18 or 24 months.
Local authorities cannot be expected to have the expertise available to the Department. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that members of local councils can be blinded by the scientific jargon of officials, and that must be borne in mind.

Mr. Oakes: I agree that there is that difficulty. Many of these are new councils dealing with new areas which they do not fully understand, and therefore they have to rely on what is normally the impeccable decision and judgment of their officers. On some occasions they have to rely too much on that advice because, due to the reorganisation of local government, they are not sure of the new area. They are accustomed to an urban district or a borough. When two or three areas are merged, with the resultant increase in population, those in charge do not necessarily know how many officers they will need or what their titles should be.
These new posts are being advertised not only for local government, but also to meet the proliferation of staff following the setting up of the water boards, the National Health Service reorganisation, and so on. What the hon. Gentleman said strikes a chord in me, as I am sure it does in many others. Some of these new posts provide a means of escaping the provisions of phase 2 and phase 3 at the expense of other workers in the community who have to abide by the rules of those policies.
Although the action may be historical, I maintain that this is a matter for the local inhabitants. Both sides of the House are concerned to ensure that local government is kept local. We want to give local government its head and its own powers. It would be tragic if the words in the amendment were added to the Bill, because the clause is already regarded with some suspicion by local

authorities. They think that the Government are saying, on the one hand, that local government should be local and rule itself and, on the other, that the interfering busybody of Whitehall should tell local authorities what to do. It would be a severe curtailment of local freedom if local authorities had for ever to look over their shoulders and wonder whether the Secretary of State might come to the conclusion that they were over-staffed. If the amendment were accepted, that would have to be a judgment of the Secretary of State and not of the authority concerned.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a problem that is in many people's minds. I hope that local authorities will consider the matter that he has raised and either give an explanation for what they are doing or solve the problem themselves. The last thing that I want to happen—and I think that in essence the Minister will say what I am saying—is for Whitehall to be given added power to tell a local authority what staff it should have or what its establishment should be. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman was right to introduce the amendment, I must tell him that the Opposition would oppose it if it were put to a Division.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree almost entirely with what was said by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). There is considerable public disquiet about the apparent growth in the staffing of the new local authorities, and I hope that they will pay the most careful attention to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray), the hon. Member for Widnes and anybody else who emphasises the problem. I have no doubt that many members of the public are beginning to feel that the rates which they will have to pay and the grants which will be received from the Government will be used to far too great an extent on administrative manpower, rather than on the provision of services which they require.
There is a difficulty from the local authorities' point of view. As my hon. Friend said, many local authorities are covering new areas and there are many new councillors and councils who have not had a chance to shake down. They are still looking round and finding their feet, and have not had adequate time in


which to assess the situation. On the other hand, senior council officers are often planning for the ideal number of staff for their departments, or perhaps for more than what would otherwise be the ideal number because they do not know the potential of their new staff, or what any given number of them will be capable of doing, whereas they did know what their old staff could do. Local government officers do have a problem.
The best that we can do in this House is to emphasise to locally elected representatives that they should exercise their responsibilities for the employment of new staff with the maximum care, remembering perhaps above all that almost never is there a cut in staff. They should remember that they will have opportunities in future, if it proves necessary, to increase their staff, but we all know that it is almost impossible to obtain a reduction in the staff employed. I hope that local authorities will remember that, and that when my right hon. Friend sums up this brief debate he will emphasise what has been said.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I share the strong feeling on this subject. I welcome the fact that the amendment has appeared on the Order Paper, although I am more disturbed about the upgrading of posts and some of the problems arising from early retirements than I am about excessive staffs. In many cases the responsibility for excessive staffs lies here.
In passing the Local Government Act and making provision for the reorganisation, we imposed certain requirements on local authorities which they have to meet. I am thinking particularly of planning requirements. There are now far more planning authorities than there were previously, and the demand for planning staffs, at any rate, is enormous. They are competing against each other in a very unhappy way. But I am particularly disturbed about the upgrading of posts which seems to be occurring. This is a particularly unhappy matter at present in industrial areas, where comparisons are being made with the position of many other people who do a very valuable and useful job in the community. This excites a great deal of criticism.
I am worried about very remunerative early retirements. A number of senior officers are retiring when one would have

expected them to be able to contribute a great deal more of great value in local government. They are relatively young people and have great and valuable experience ; yet they are retiring on very advantageous terms, which are far better than the terms which many industrial workers have enjoyed, and they will, I suspect, be able to take up other work in the community with the advantage of the retirement provision that they have been able to acquire.
These matters need to be examined. There is a great deal of unhappiness and dissatisfaction in some of our industrial areas.

Mr. David Weitzman: There is a great deal of force in the criticism made by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray). Much of what he said is correct. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to say that if it is
the opinion that the local authority is excessively staffed in relation to its size, functions, delegated responsibilities and agencies
that is a matter to be considered. But one finds in the wording of subsection (1)(a) a duty on authorities to
maintain a reasonable standard in the discharge of any of their functions.
If they offended in any of the directions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, it may well be said that they did not
maintain a reasonable standard in the discharge of any of their functions.
Therefore, with great respect, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I accept that there is some alarm about some of the upgradings and some of the increases in salary of the new posts following the reorganisation of local government, but the amendment gives a job to the Secretary of State which his Department is not able to perform. I know the difficulties which the Department had in trying to monitor rates last year. I do not believe that it is possible for the Department at present to examine all the local councils and metropolitan counties and districts, and other counties and districts, to ascertain whether, in the Departments opinion, they have the right staff at the correct rates of pay. The


Department does not have the staff to enable it to do that.
This is a job for local government. If local councillors get it wrong, they will pay the penalty as well as ratepayers.

Mr. Idris Owen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider what he said. He is suggesting that if the local councillors get it wrong it is they who will have to face the consequences. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, local authorities are having to meet only approximately 20 per cent. of their expenditure, the rest of it being provided by the Treasury and by industry and commerce. Therefore, local authorities would not have to face the consequences of their own wrong doing.

Mr. Marks: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. When I said "the penalty' I meant the consequences that we and councillors face periodically when we get matters wrong, that is, the consequences of the choice of our electors.
The problems are too variable for us to agree to the amendment. It is difficult to judge what is the right staff, particularly for new metropolitan districts. The metropolitan counties have been accused of empire building in their departments. But what are they to use as a guide? The only previous metropolitan county is London. Shall they take London as a guide as to the size of their departments and to the salaries of their officers? They must make up their minds on their own experience and knowledge of the district, and very often on their knowledge of how difficult it is to persuade officers of high calibre—not only in terms of salary—to come to areas which may not be as salubrious as others.
One-third of my constituency is in the City of Manchester. Two-thirds of it will be in the new Tameside Metropolitan District. Manchester hardly changes under local government reorganisation. The lord mayor puts his other hat on and he is the chairman of the district council—at present, at any rate. The departments have hardly changed. It is true that some of the council's offices have moved upstairs to the county. But reorganisation has not presented great difficulties.
Tameside consists of nine non-county boroughs and urban districts, none of which has had its own education officer or director of social services previously but all of which have had treasurers. Having to start from scratch, they have a much more difficult job. In proportion they probably need more able officers than the more settled authorities in this situation
That is the kind of authority which is coming in for criticism. Ratepayers who are used to seeing urban district standards of pay for their chief officers get a slight shock when they see the salary of a chief officer of a metropolitan district with a population of about 350,000 people. There have been difficulties in the past when there have been shortages of particular officers, for instance, chief public health inspectors. At one time an auction took place among local authorities which were trying to obtain enough well qualified health inspectors.
We have presented ourselves with a difficulty regarding early retirement. In the main, officers are not retiring but moving on to private enterprise, and so on—probably at higher salaries, whatever phase 3 says about that. In the case that I have mentioned, nine treasurers will be superseded by one treasurer, and I should think that six or seven of them will elect for early retirement.
I cannot support the amendment. I know the worries involved, but the local authorities, particularly the new authorities with different problems, should be encouraged to tackle their problems and, if necessary, to get the right officers to do the job.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) on his ingenuity in finding a place in the Bill in which to discuss this important subject. It has resulted in some assistance to me in that I have been able to assess the atmosphere and the general feeling. I have had a large postbag on this subject. Some of the opinions which have been expressed are exaggerated and some are ill-informed, but some cannot be disregarded. Therefore, I have considered what can be done.
My hon. Friend will not be surprised when I say that I cannot advise the House


to accept the amendment. I say that for two reasons. The first reason is that the basis of the reorganisation of local government, which comes into effect in a few weeks on 1st April, is that local government should be more independent of central Government and not less so. Local authorities have certain functions placed on them by statute and they have the statutory power to employ such officers as they may think necessary for the proper discharge of their functions. For central Government to take over the task of assessing whether local authorities are excessively staffed would be a fundamental encroachment on the discretion of authorities in a vital sphere. It would inevitably shift from local government to the Secretary of State the responsibility to judge a local authority's staff requirements and, in the last resort, its ability to provide local services.
The second reason for having to resist the amendment is that even if my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment thought it right to take over this function from local government which, as I have said, he does not, central Government are not in a position to reach conclusions regarding the precise numbers of officers who should be employed in each grade by every one of the 400-odd new authorities in England. That is a task which each authority must consider and settle for itself. The authorities are in a position to do so.
Having explained those two reasons, I must say that I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have spoken for having raised this matter, on which I and my ministerial colleagues have received so many letters and oral representations. The Press has carried a number of allegations about the extravagant staffing proposals of the new authorities. It would be true to say that there has been public uneasiness, to put it in the mildest terms. I have referred to it in fairly strong terms in recent public speeches.
Over the years the number of local authority employees has steadily risen to meet the needs of expanding services. People expect local authorities to provide wider services and to achieve higher standards. To do so requires staff who are trained and skilled. That is the basic reason why the number of those who are employed in local government has

risen over the years. It is proper that that should have happened as local government services have increased.
That is the long-term view, but recent uneasiness is not connected so much with the long term, or the increase in local government services and the administration of them, but with the short-term transitional problems which have been raised by reorganisation. Reorganisation produces an upheaval. The administration of staff is a great responsibility.
When the new system has settled down, the larger authorities should mean a much more economic use of manpower. I am sure that that will be the position. In the short-term transitional period there are conflicting influences at work. The new authorities making a fresh start have understandably considered what staff they will need to provide the range of services to which they and their electors aspire.
In some areas—and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) mentioned planning—the new allocation of functions has given responsibilities to all district councils whereas at present they are chiefly in the hands of counties and county boroughs. Both influences tend towards a demand for extra staff. On the other hand, when we look at the hard realities, whatever plans there are on paper, we know that reorganisation will not lead to a sudden and dramatic rise in local government employment. Many existing authorities are operating below the complement which they think desirable. There are shortages in some of the professions on which the local authorities rely.
The staff who will man the new authorities after 1st April will be essentially the people employed by the existing authorities who have either already accepted appointments with the new authorities or will be transferred by order on 1st April. I do not expect any sudden increase. It is true that many officers are timing their retirement to coincide with reorganisation. That is a factor in the other direction which must be taken into account.
There have been complaints of salary increases. Salary scales are settled through the established negotiating machinery. Salary movements are


governed, like other salaries, by the Government's counter-inflation policies. Attention has been directed towards the salary scales of chief executives and other chief officers. The first point which I must make is that reorganisation will lead to the establishment of more large authorities and that there will be more posts carrying greater responsibilities and, therefore, higher salaries. That is because grading depends so frequently upon population. If the size of the authority is increased the chief officer will get into another grade.
The second point is that the scales for chief executives and other chief officers have been examined by the Pay Board, which indicated its satisfaction, in general terms, that the scales had been devised with proper regard to the pay code. There are detailed applications for some posts which may still be the subject of investigation by the Pay Board. I should like the House to understand that fully. My Department is not the right authority to inquire into any breach of the pay code. If such a breach arose the Pay Board would be the right authority. For some posts there may be such investigation by the board.
I have been attempting to consider the situation dispassionately and to point to some of the pressures at work. I believe that the allegations of over-staffing may turn out in many cases to be exaggerated. However, allegations have reached me and my Department on a scale which requires that they should be examined authoritatively as quickly as possible. What are needed are firm facts and figures against which the rumours and allegations can be tested.

Mr. Idris Owen: My right hon. Friend is casting some doubt on the question whether there is evidence of over-staffing. He may be right. However, it cannot be overlooked that the largest growth industry in my constituency is local government. Is my right hon. Friend aware that not one of the urban district authorities that have been embraced within the metropolitan county district has given up its local offices? In fact, those offices have been used as sub-offices for various departments. In addition, offices have been built costing millions of pounds to accommodate the staffs. For years past the town hall has been reasonably

adequate, coupled with the establishment of the urban district offices, but now not only are we keeping the urban district offices, and nearly doubling the size of the town hall, but renting offices on a long-lease basis which have been built for speculative purposes. All I am suggesting is that if we are having all that accommodation we inevitably must put bodies into it.

Mr. Page: It might have been better if my hon. Friend had sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and make that as a speech. I was coming to very much the point that he raises. He is repeating the sort of facts that I have received many times in correspondence. It is these very facts that I want to check. It would be irresponsible of any Minister to accept them without an authoritative examination.
Therefore, I am glad to be able to tell the House that the collection of comprehensive information is proceeding and that this exercise is being undertaken by the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board—commonly known as LACSAB—upon which are represented all the employing local authorities and their associations. I believe that it is right that local government itself should provide the facts on this.
The advisory board will be sending a questionnaire to all old and new authorities ; and on the basis of the answers it should be possible to obtain a true comparison of the general staffing situation and the wages bills both before and after reorganisation. When the facts have been received and analysed by LACSAB, the local authority associations and the advisory board will be able to identify whether there are problems and, if so, where and what the solution may be.

Mr. Oakes: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I wonder, when the investigation takes place, whether it should not be only of local authorities but whether the regional water boards and the regional health boards should be considered also, because it would appear from the newspapers that their proliferation, multiplication and enhancement of posts is even greater than has occurred with the local authorities. So I should like this to be an investigation, not only into local authorities, but also into regional water boards and the National


Water Council and the regional health boards, if that were possible.

Mr. Graham Page: This does not arise on the amendment. I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I want to concentrate at the moment on a very definite step which has been taken. Work is being carried out in the collection of this information. It is entirely right that this move should be undertaken within local government by a body which is part of local government. There is a long tradition of joint negotiation on staffing matters in local government. I welcome this move, not only because it is being taken by the body which is best placed to carry out the formidable task of collecting and analysing the very complicated information which will flow in, but also because it is evidence of the ability and desire to tackle local government problems through local government machinery.
The Pay Board also has a statutory interest in salary levels. I do not want to trespass on the Pay Board's territory or inhibit the exercise of its separate and independent powers. However, I am told that the information needed by the Pay Board for its functions will be made available to the board by LACSAB.
So this carries through the whole process by which LACSAB collects the information for an authoritative examination. It will submit the information to my Department and, more important, LACSAB will be prepared to submit the information to the Pay Board. LACSAB is, however, independently of the Pay Board, carrying out its own inquiry into staffing levels and costs, and it is this initiative which I am welcoming today. I hope that authorities will co-operate fully in this review.

Mr. Weitzman: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the short point which I raised? If, as the amendment postulates, the evil is that a local authority is excessively staffed, does not that come within the words in Clause 5(1)(a) which refers to the authority having
failed to … maintain a reasonable standard in the discharge of any of their functions.
Therefore, has not the power already been put into the Bill in that provision?

Mr. Page: The provision which the hon. and learned Gentleman quotes is repeated from previous legislation and I do not think that it has ever been applied to overstaffing as being something not within the standards. I should have to take some legal advice on that, perhaps from the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. I have not seen it applied in that form before. Therefore, I think that it is necessary for us to carry out this investigation and to leave the matter then to the Pay Board to consider.
6.15 p.m.
I hope that local authorities will regard it, not as an implied criticism of the preparations they have been making, but as part of the much wider exercise now facing central as well as local government—that of carrying out a realistic appraisal of plans in the light of current economic constraints and the general shortage of skilled and experienced staff.
So, to sum up, I have attempted to set out some of the background pressures which will influence the level of local government staffing in the long run. The allegations which have been made in recent weeks are primarily associated with the transitional period of reorganisation. The Advisory Board—LACSAB—will be collecting the information on which a realistic appraisal of the present situation can be made and a comparison drawn between the pre-reorganisation period and the post-reorganisation period. I urge local authorities to co-operate with this investigation.
I could not advise the House to accept an amendment which would drastically reduce the responsibilities of local authorities in this vital field. In view of the way in which the problem is about to be tackled by local government itself, though I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and thank him for initiating the debate, I invite him to consider withdrawing the amendment, in view of what I have said.

Mr. Oakes: I rarely speak twice in the course of one debate, but on this occasion I should like to do so, with the leave of the House, because in effect what the right hon. Gentleman has just made to the House is a major statement. I am not criticising him for this, but he gave it in reply to an amendment tabled by his


hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) whereas it would be more usual for a statement of this magnitude to be made at half-past three as a ministerial statement. I have a number of questions which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer, as he has made this statement on a matter which will be of very deep concern to local authorities and to the public at large.
First, will LACS AB's investigation apply to all local authorities, or will it be restricted to a number of authorities? If it is to be a selected number of authorities, on what criteria will they be selected? In other words, will LACSAB investigate only those authorities against which complaint has been made to the Minister or to LACSAB itself, or will it investigate all local authorities to see in what way they have structured their staff, their pay and so on?
I am certain that most local authorities will agree to this investigation on a voluntary basis. Secondly, however, what statutory authority—indeed, what authority at all—has LACSAB to obtain information from local authorities if those local authorities are recalcitrant and will not give the information to the advisory body?
This does not strictly arise on the amendment, but it arises from the statement the Minister has made. Thirdly, I earnestly ask the Minister to ask LACSAB, if it is within its purview—or, if it is not, to ask some other body—to investigate the regional water boards and the regional health boards as well as local authorities. I ask LACSAB to look at the appointments which those bodies are making and the salary structure they are offering and to report back to the Minister, to some other body or to the Pay Board.
Finally, having taken that action, when LACSAB has this information what action can it thereafter take? Will it report to the local authority associations, to the Minister or to the Pay Board? In other words, LACSAB having armed itself with this information, what use will it make of the information that it has obtained?
I am sorry to have intervened in the debate again, but I think you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has made a major statement.

Mr. Graham Page: On the first point about whether LACSAB will be making an inquiry of all local authorities, the answer is "Yes". Both existing and new authorities will be helping because a comparison is necessary to judge what is happening.
On the second point about LACSAB s authority for making the investigation and what it can do with a recalcitrant authority that refuses to answer, I should stress that LACSAB is a voluntary body of local authorities. It is, so to speak the trade union of employers—that is, local authorities. I would not expect any revolt among local authorities on a matter of this kind. If a local authority refused to give information, I should have thought that it was suspect right away, but one does not look at it from the point of view of statutory authority when asking local authorities to co-operate.
As for regional water authorities and area health authorities, I will consider the former as it is within my Department's jurisdiction, but I cannot answer in respect of the health authorities.
One has not the same voluntary employers' union in the new body of regional water authorities as with the local authorities under LACSAB. It may be that the National Water Council could get such information. However, I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall not ignore the matter.
The fourth question was about what would be done as a result of the investigation. The important point is that LACSAB will make its information available to the Pay Board. It is the Pay Board that should, in present circumstances, look into the subject. Beyond having been supplied with information, I want to avoid my Department acting as a kind of "big brother" or ombudsman to local authorities. I am deeply interested in the result of the inquiry but I should not like to forecast any action upon it from my Department in the form of monitoring or orders to local authorities to do anything. The publicity that will come from such an inquiry will bring its own results.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I have two points to raise about the investigation. First, will there be any opportunity for councillors or those concerned with local government to be heard


by the inquiry, because there are policy matters to be considered? I am concerned about overstaffing where a number of boroughs are telescoped into one district council. Will accountants take part in the investigation, people well versed in deciding what is the appropriate ratio of staffing? I do not know what is the composition of the inquiry, but there are both the policy and accountancy aspects in considering the proper outcome.

Mr. Page: LACSAB is a body concerned with the conditions of employment by local authorities, such as the wages and salaries offered to officers. It is a body well suited to the subject. I hope that I did not use the word "inquiry". I fear that in using that word my hon. Friend may have got the wrong impression. The exercise will be the collection of information by means of a questionnaire. The information will be studied by a body which has perhaps the best knowledge of the functioning of local authorities. But it is in no way an inquiry, and people will not be cross-examined. Once the information is collected, the proper conclusions may be drawn.

Mr. Bray: I thank my right hon. Friend for a positive and satisfactory reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS FOR TRANSPORT PURPOSES

Mr. Grahatitle Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 22, at end insert:
'(1A) To the extent that it would not otherwise be so included, there shall be treated for the purposes of this section as included in a council's estimated expenditure in connection with transport matters their estimated capital expenditure in connection with the provision by any person of facilities for or in connection with the loading or unloading of freight carried or intended to be carried otherwise than by road'
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the scope of Clause 6(1) to ensure that capital expenditure by local authorities in providing handling facilities for freight carried or intended to be carried by means other than by road will be

taken into account in determining the transport supplementary grants.
We discussed fully in Committee the transport supplementary grants and what might be included in them. The point about freight was raised and I promised to examine it to see whether we could introduce an amendment of this kind. The amendment carries out that undertaking. I am grateful to the hon. Members who raised the matter in Committee and I hope that the solution is satisfactory to them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

RESIDENTIAL OCCUPIERS

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 15, line 41, leave out 'is the tenant of, and'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendment No. 8.

Mr. Rossi: The object of these amendments is to extend the rebate scheme to sub-tenants. The matter was not raised in Committee, but sub-tenants have the benefit of rent allowances and it was thought only right that they should have rate rebates.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 15, leave out line 46 and insert:
'payments by way of rent to the occupier or any other person who is himself a residential occupier'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 15, line 46, at end insert:
'Provided that a residential occupier shall not be eligible for any benefit under this Part of this Act in respect of any part or all of a hereditament for which a claim for an allowance against tax has been accepted'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss new Clause 17, Duty to notify local authority when a tax allowance is granted.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The amendment's effect is limited to Clause 13. I should also like to draw attention to the purpose of new Clause 17 which applies the same principle universally across the whole area of residential premises. The


object of both is that, where premises are residential in appearance but are partly commercial, professional or business in use, they should not be eligible for the favourable rating assessment which is rightly applied to premises which are genuinely residential.
The problem is felt acutely not only in South Kensington but throughout central London and probably in areas of all our great cities where there are active business communities. The effect is felt in rapid rises in rents for flats, particularly because agents find that they are able to obtain much higher rents by letting flats to companies which require to use them for their executives than if they stick exclusively to applicants wanting genuine residential occupation.
Companies may want accommodation in central London for direct business or professional use of a social or entertainment character, or they may be willing to set up their executives at company expense in what they deem to be prestige areas because they think it to be in the interests of their business.
The effect of this type of competition is often to establish sensational rents for blocks of flats where a number of leases have to be negotiated and which can be used by the agent as an example in dealing with existing occupants when their leases expire. Those occupants then find themselves obliged to compete because it can be shown that if they leave the premises the owners can readily obtain the figure demanded by the agent.
6.30 p.m.
We need to find a solution to this problem. It could be done if we could identify these quasi-comercial properties by their treatment for tax purposes. Obviously one does not want the Inland Revenue to have to make disclosures of confidential information to local authorities, but it would not be wrong to require ratepayers to declare to their local authorities whether they can get assistance in paying their rents through the tax system by declaring them as wholly or partly a business expense.
It is necessary to emphasise the word "partly", because hon. Members will know of cases in which professional or business people use one or two rooms of their houses as offices—and one can

not object to that. But one also knows of cases in which a tax concession can be obtained, and it would not be wrong for the principle that I am seeking to apply to accommodation which was wholly devoted to entertaining for business purposes to apply in part to that part of a house or flat which was used as business or professional premises.
One could make it a duty of the ratepayers who are able to establish a claim for a tax allowance in respect of part or all of the premises for which they have to pay rates to notify their local authority of the facts. The authority may then require that a fresh assessment should be carried out, taking into account the way in which the premises are deemed to be used for tax purposes.
This device of using the tax system is a useful recommendation because it is obviously difficult, if not impossible, from outward observation to detect that business is creeping into a block of flats which is outwardly purely residential. My right hon. Friend might reflect that the effect of a proposal of this kind, if it were accepted, might be perhaps even to double the rates on the part or the whole of the premises which was identified by this means. I do not want to suggest exactly how the reassessment might be tackled, but, if the effect were to double the rates, that would not be inordinate. The local authority would then have the benefit of the higher income which was thought appropriate from commercial premises.
Another effect, I hope, would be that the tendency to bid recklessly for vacant premises would be somewhat checked and that some property which had effectively gone out of residential use might return to meet genuine housing need. I appreciate that the precise form in which my amendment appears may not be acceptable for technical drafting reasons, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this idea seriously and favourably none the less.
It seems equitable that people who get help with their rents through the tax system should not also be able to get help with their rates from the taxpayer. The real argument is the housing cost problem which manifests itself particularly in areas which business people consider prestige areas but also more widely. Possibly my right hon. Friend, if he feels


that I have made a useful point, will consider amending the Bill to this effect in another place.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for raising this interesting point. With his usual acumen he has described an area of some difficulty. For the reason that he has himself given, I cannot accept his amendment because there are considerable drafting difficulties in it—particularly the use of the phrase "commercial premises", which is not defined in any legislation. There is some case law on the point, but this is an area of great uncertainty.
It would not be for me at this stage even to go so far as to give an undertaking that it would be possible at a later stage to define the matter precisely enough to give effect to what my hon. Friend is seeking. He has made a point about a problem which, I feel, is possibly limited to Kensington and is not very prevalent in the rest of the country.
The national average domestic rate payment in 1973–74 is estimated at £65. If an occupier uses, say, one-eighth of his accommodation for business purposes and gets an allowance, his rates will rise to £65·64, which is an increase of only 1p per week. In Kensington, where properties are rated more highly, there would be a more serious difference, but, having regard to that kind of figure, it seems to be a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut which possibly exists only in Kensington.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the other problem that tax allowances are personal to the taxpayer but a rate assessment is made on property. It would require information possibly to pass between the Inland Revenue and the rating authorities to bring forward the kind of scheme that my hon. Friend has in mind. Also, Amendment No. 74 goes contrary to amendments that the Government accepted in Committee, when a case was made by hon. Members to give a rate rebate to the small shopkeeper or the seaside landlady.
When talking in terms of rent rebates, what we are saying is that relief should be given to classes of people whose income is below certain limits. Those

limits may be more generous than those allowed by the Inland Revenue for tax threshold purposes, but that is another matter altogether. I do not think hon. Members should complain when we are being as generous as we possibly can be when dealing with rate rebates.
Although it is possible that people in this category are living in highly-rated property in Kensington, nevertheless when applying for rebates, we are having regard to their ability to pay and income within the criteria laid down by the rate rebate system. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendment.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: With leave of the House, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks and I am glad that he appreciates the extent of the problem in South Kensington. However, I think that it he could examine this problem he would find it was more widespread than he thinks.
I am not concerned with the problems of part business or professional use of premises which are genuinely residential. What worries me is the increasing number of flats in London which are not being used for residential purposes at all and which have therefore been withdrawn from the housing market by embassies, multinational companies and organisation which like to have an address where they can entertain visitors, and which they can use as a letterhead and where they exploit the character of the neighbourhood to enhance their business without thinking of the needs of the residential population. They seem to be willing to bid recklessly when accommodation becomes available in the areas they fancy, and this is very hard on people who are genuinely seeking to renew their leases and cannot compete.
In view of my hon. Friend's remarks it would be futile to press the amendment at this stage. I hope he recognises that there is a real problem here and that he will not allow the matter to drop. If he does not accept my recommendation, I hope he will make his own.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for elaborating his point of difficulty. We will certainly consider it and write to him.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am glad to have that assurance and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 16, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 66 and 67.

Mr. Rossi: This is a simple matter of bringing the residents of the Temples into the rate rebate scheme. Under Clause 10 the Temples are deemed to be local authorities for the purpose of the domestic element. At one time it was thought not necessary to extend the rebate to residents of the Temples because at this point they did not charge and have never charged a rate. They charge inclusive rent. But it is foreseeable that in future the Temples might wish to charge a rate, so it was felt necessary to make these amendments now to save the need for amending legislation in future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

RATING OF UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 17, line 41, at end insert:
'(1A) In subsection (5) of that section for the words "This section and the said Schedule 1 shall not apply to the Temples, and in their application" there shall be substituted the words "In the application of this section and the said Schedule 1".'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Mr. Bray: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 18, line 33, at end insert:
'(5) The owner of an unoccupied and nonresidential hereditament may apply to the Courts for a remission of up to three-quarters of the rates payable to the rating authority if it can be proved that every effort has been made to find an occupier for the hereditament and that hardship would be suffered'.
The clause seeks to rate unoccupied property irrespective of whether it is residential or industrial. My amendment refers more specifically to industrial properties and whether they should be rated when they remain unoccupied after a certain time. It reverses the procedure which is conventional when rates are not paid. As I understand the position

—and I hasten to add that I have not been sued for non-payment on either private or industrial premises—the rate demand note is sent to the owner or occupier. If he fails to pay he is in due course summoned, appearances are entered and in due course a judgment may be obtained and so on.
Under the Bill if the local authority wishes to reduce the incidence or impact of the rate it may do so at its discretion bearing in mind the situation which is represented to it by the ratepayer as and when he comes to court, on the ratepayer's ability to pay and on the efforts he has made to find a tenant for the unoccupied industrial premises.
However, another factor enters into the matter where an industrial estate is being developed and a number of factories are being built on speculation. With the best will in the world there is no guarantee that all these factories will be let overnight. It might take a week, a month or, in many cases, even a year or two before all the factories are let. Is it fair to expect the individual who has taken the risk of building these factories to pay the full rateable value at the whim of the local authority? On the other hand, whether he occupies the premises or not he must accept that they are subject to certain rating services. The police must protect the premises from vandalism, and the fire services and, to an extent, the public health services are involved. Therefore, the clause provides that the ratepayer may receive only up to 75 per cent. rebate on his assessment. The 25 per cent. is seen as a contribution towards the cost of these essential services.
The proposal embodied in my amendment is far more clear-cut. Under it a ratepayer would receive a demand for the unoccupied property and he would then apply immediately to the courts for the remission of up to 75 per cent., stating that he has used his best endeavours to let the premises—or hereditament, as it says in the Bill—and that having to pay the rates in full would cause him or the company severe financial embarrassment. If the court decides that the ratepayer has no ground for deferring payment there is no excuse thereafter for the rates not being paid. That is the substance of the amendment.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear another point in mind. The Bill


enables a local authority to decide whether or not to press for the rates. When a ratepayer applies to the court, however, he is dealing with a wholly impartial body which will decide on the merits of the case, and according to the facts presented by the ratepayer, how much rate must be paid.
By accepting the amendment my right hon. Friend will be taking a great step forward in encouraging the continuation of industrial development.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) has explained, the amendment would give the owner of unoccupied non-residential property the right to apply to the courts for remission of up to three-quarters of the empty property rate on the grounds that he had made every effort to find an occupier and that hardship would be caused by the imposition of the full amount. Clause 15(4) would already allow a rating authority to remit or reduce the empty property rate on grounds of hardship.
In effect, the amendment would operate as an appeal against the authority's decision not to remit or reduce the empty property rate on grounds of hardship. My hon. Friend said that the ratepayer who wished to avail himself of that would apply to the court but if the right to apply to the court were given in such cases those cases might never come before the court. It would be a matter of, perhaps, exerting a little force on the local authority to reconsider the decision not to remit and thus a settlement might be reached.
It is easy to think up a number of arguments against the proposal embodied in my hon. Friend's amendment. It applies to unoccupied and non-residential hereditaments, but it could be said that the owner of residential property suffers just as badly. Some residential property is hard to dispose of and the owner might be put to financial hardship in that case. Hardship is interpreted as financial hardship and my hon. Friend has argued his case from that point of view.
Another argument against the clause is that one of the main reasons in favour of rating empty property is that such property makes some call on local authority services, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

Normally, 100 per cent. rating properly recompenses the local authority for the services which it must have ready to deal with vacant property, so that it is possible to criticise the figure of 75 per cent. remission in those cases. Nevertheless, one might have sympathy with the principles of the amendment.
One of the purposes of Clause 15 is to make empty property rating more attractive to rating authorities and therefore applicable more widely than at present. Complaints at present from local authorities have been that the law relating to empty property rating is not flexible enough, that they are too tied down and therefore they are frightened to apply it. For example, we have provided in Clause 15 that the seven-year period need not apply. This provides increased flexibility and from that point of view my hon. Friend's amendment is constructive. However one wishes to leave as much discretion as possible to the local authorities, some of them might not use their power to reduce or remit empty property rating on grounds of hardship, or they might exercise it capriciously, and it may be that we should give the ratepayer the right to bring a decision quickly. This is the important point. The ratepayer can then take the initiative to get a decision and not have the full rate hanging over his head for a long time.
On those grounds I ask my hon. Friend to let me look at this further, because it seems to be an attractive course to follow. I shall try to see whether anything can be drafted on these lines. I will not promise the 75 per cent. I will not promise anything firm. I should like to look at it, accepting the principle, to see whether some amendment on these lines can be introduced.
My main worry is the time-tabling of the Bill. I should not like to overload another place with complicated amendments. Whatever assurance I give, any amendment introduced must be simple and must be one which gives a person suffering hardship the right to get a quick decision on the question whether he has to pay the full 100 per cent. or can get some concession.

Mr. Bray: I thank my right hon. Friend for being so co-operative. This issue concerns me greatly from the point of view of redevelopment taking place in North-West


England, particularly in the Greater Manchester area. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

EXEMPTION FROM RATES FOR CERTAIN HEREDITAMENTS COMPRISING FACILITIES FOR DISABLETITLE PERSONS

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 21, line 21, at end insert:
(f) any structure within the hereditament provided or adapted exclusively to assist a disabled person.
The Minister will remember that in Committee I moved an amendment seeking to exempt from rates those parts of a household that had been provided as a result of adaptations specifically for the use of a disabled person. That amendment was favourably received by the Minister. There were technical objections to it in that I had mentioned equipment provided under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which was incorrect because the equipment is provided under other measures. I have endeavoured to be even more simple in this amendment. Its object is clear and I do not need to spend a great deal of time explaining it. I feel sure that all hon. Members will give it support.
Under Clause 19 and under the principal Act—the 1967 General Rate Act—certain exemptions can be made, for example for a garage or a garage site provided for the use of a disabled person. That is right and proper. Since 1967 we have considered many other matters which are not amenities but which are essentials for a disabled person. I have in mind such things as a lift which enables a disabled person to move up and down stairs. Under current legislation such an installation would add to the rateable value of the house because it is an improvement.
When such an improvement is made exclusively to help a disabled person, it is wrong that that person should be penalised through having to pay higher rates. There are many other such adaptations which are made exclusively to assist disabled persons. Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons

Act applications can be made to the local social services department for a downstairs room to be made into a bathroom and toilet for the benefit of a disabled person who cannot use stairs. Adaptations can be made to widen doors enabling wheelchairs to pass through them. Sometimes sliding doors are fitted in place of doors with knobs which an arthritic person cannot turn. All of these may be minor matters but they can amount to an upward revaluation of the property.
My hon Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) is well known for his concern for the disabled and no doubt, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to speak with detailed knowledge of such improvements. I am sure he will want to talk about central heating. Sometimes a doctor may recommend that it is essential that some form of central heating is provided for a disabled person. That is a classic example of how there can be a revaluation of the property, even taking into account the provisions of the Bill.
We say that when such an adaptation is made exclusively for the benefit of a disabled person, it ought to be excluded from rating calculations. Since the passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act we have shown a greater concern for the need to provide adaptations which make the life of a disabled person worth living. It is wrong that, having made such adaptations, a disabled person, who can least afford it, should be penalised by having to pay increased rates.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to this. I appreciate that my amendment is rude and homespun. It may not meet the legal requirements of the parliamentary draftsmen. If it does not and if the Minister will say that he is prepared to introduce an amendment in another place embodying the spirit of my amendment, I will willingly withdraw it. In view of his own sympathy and concern for disabled persons, which is shared by all hon. Members, I hope that he will be able to make some provision so that such persons can at least be relieved of an increased rate burden as a result of making adaptations to their homes. This is the time to take such a step.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has put forward a good argument. I want to refer specifically to one organisation which could obtain considerable benefit from the amendment. It is called Habinteg and it represents the Spastic Society's attempt to obtain housing for disabled people under housing association provisions. It is responsible for building 20 to 30 homes, a limited number of which are made available to the disabled. Such schemes would be helped tremendously if the amendment were accepted.
My hon. Friend called it a homespun amendment which came from the heart. It is basically a good amendment. If the phraseology is not acceptable to the Minister, I hope he will indicate that he is prepared in another place to have this point included in the Bill.
The people from Habinteg have assured me that all too often improvements and adaptations to property can send up the rateable value. I am sure that the House never intended to put double burdens on disability. Disability is itself sufficient handicap to a person's capacity to earn or conserve money.
7.0 p.m.
congratulate the Minister on what he has included in the clause. He has gone a long way to deal with this point, and the proposal will be welcomed by the Opposition. We ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the amendment or give an assurance that a similar amendment will be made in another place, so that the whole range is covered. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has tried to embrace all categories. In an age of advancing technology it will be possible to modify homes in such a way that at a valuation thereafter the rateable value will be increased substantially. It would be dreadful if, as a result of modifying a home to enable a disabled person to live freely, away from hospitals or institutions and with his family, the value of the property was enhanced, thus increasing the burden on those living there. I am sure that that is not what the Minister intended.
I make a plea from the heart to the hon. Gentleman to accept the amendment. The wider the provision is, the better. I appreciate that Governments hate making provisions too wide, because

it is felt that unscrupulous people will, so to speak, drive horses and carts through the regulations. But the amendment, or a redrafted version, would provide much relief for people who are suffering unnecessarily.
Provision of heating in a property is needed for not only the disabled but the elderly and aged. Everyone is deeply conscious of the threat to the elderly from hypothermia. We should not do anything to restrict local authorities, housing authorities, charities or individuals from improving properties to make life easier for the elderly and disabled, so that they do not have to live in institutions and can thus be independent of society. Anything which can be done to assist them would be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Although this is not the basis of my argument, I believe that the Minister, if he accepts the amendment, will be saving substantial sums of money for the Government. If people can be kept out of institutions and hospitals, vast sums will be saved. The disabled would not be the only people to gain. We must think also of those who look after, nurse or sustain the disabled. Such financial relief would be of great benefit to them.
I urge the Minister to accept the amendment or give the undertaking for which my hon. Friend has asked. It would be an honest gesture on the part of the Government. It would be welcomed by the disabled, voluntary societies and local authorities at a time when social services departments are becoming increasingly worried about the impact of cuts in spending to help the disabled. A gesture tonight would be very welcome and would give a reassurance that the Government have in mind the interests of a substantial number of people.
The cost of modifying homes will rise rapidly from time to time. Environmental controllers when installed in homes are so valuable that they are bound to enhance the value of the properties. It would be terrible to impose double taxation on those least able to pay. I urge the hon. Gentleman to accept the amendment or give an assurance that he will introduce a modified version of it in another place in a way acceptable to the House.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Members for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) have raised a matter of great importance, which strikes chords of sympathy throughout the House. The Government would not be slow to respond to such pleas to help the disabled and would agree with the amendment if it were necessary. But I have been advised that it is unnecessary because instances such as those mentioned, in which no account should be taken of improvements or adaptations for rating valuation purposes, are covered by Section 45 of the General Rate Act 1967. This gives rate relief in respect of certain facilities for disabled persons by providing that no account shall be taken of those facilities in ascertaining the gross value of the hereditament.
I am advised that the wording of the section is sufficient to cover exemptions for matters such as provision of lifts, wider corridors, special doors and other special facilities which the disabled may require. Therefore it seems unnecessary to bring in additional legislation to meet a provision which already exists.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does that mean that the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will cover heating as well? That was one of our valid points. As I understand it, installation of heating facilities tends to attract revaluation. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance about this?

Mr. Rossi: The test in that case, as in all the instances I have mentioned, must be that the adaptation is for the benefit of the disabled. If particular heating requirements were recommended because of the disablement involved, I am sure that the legislation I have mentioned would cover it. If there are any individual questions of doubt as to whether a particular matter falls within Section 45, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider them and see that relief is given. I give that assurance on behalf of the Government.
The problem about the amendment is that it is drawn in such wide terms and goes far beyond the case which has been made out. If implemented, it would enable a theatre, for example, to gain rating relief if it installed a ramp for wheelchairs for the disabled. One hopes that

theatres are sufficiently public-minded to provide that facility without having to be given the inducement of escaping rating. The amendment could lead to complications which I am sure the Opposition would not wish to see introduced into our rating system, involving the granting of exemption to commercial property——

Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: Am I correct in assuming that under other legislation theatres would have to install ramps to permit access by the disabled, as would other premises used for commercial purposes?

Mr. Rossi: There is provision for such a requirement to be made, I believe, particularly under byelaws. If such a requirement were applied, it would be unnecessary to give the owners or occupiers of premises the incentive of rating relief, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point.
Having been told that Section 45 is so wide as to cover disablement, hon. Members may ask why we have the clause, giving an exemption. The reason is that Section 45 refers specifically to garages for invalid cars. The exemption there relates to the garages but not to the sites on which they are built. Until the revaluation last year that created no problem, because the sites were of such little value that they were of no consequence in the valuation. But since revaluation some of the sites have too high a value to be ignored, and the valuation officer would have to take it into account in his new valuation unless we provided an additional exemption. That is the object of the clause. It is in line with the Government's wish to extend exemptions to the disabled wherever they appear necessary.
We have been advised by our legal advisers that the amendment is unnecessary because it is already covered by Section 45.

Mr. Oakes: I should like to consider in much greater detail what the Minister has just told us. I was under the impression that Section 45 of the principal Act related almost exclusively to garages and garage sites.
When I moved a similar amendment in Committee I received a different reply from the Under-Secretary who was dealing


with the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman told me on 4th December:
The other limb is to extend the exemption to any other structure within the hereditament provided for the disabled person. The difficulty here is that we are all together in spirit, but the provision extends the scope widely.
To judge by what the Minister has told us tonight, however, nothing could be wider than Section 45. His hon. Friend also said in Committee, on a different but kindred matter:
I should like to look into the matter and I will do so, but if it is put that way, a concert hall or theatre, or any other public place providing, as I hope they all will provide, facilities for the disabled person, such as a ramp or a toilet, would be out of rating. That would not be right for large places. We ought not to be providing incentives to theatres and concert halls to put in help for the disabled ; it should be regarded as an absolutely normal part of the design.
If concert halls, theatres and other places put in assistance for the disabled, they, too, should not be rated on it, any more than a dwelling house should be, because they are providing a public service at their own cost, for very small return as a general rule. They do it out of public-spiritedness, to assist disabled people. I agree that one would expect them to do it anyway, but, having done it, they should not be rated for performing a public service.
The Under-Secretary also said in Committee:
The hon. Gentleman"—
he was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell)—
is absolutely right. The problem is to draw lines. Manifestly a lift adds materially to the value of the property and when a disabled person ceases to live there it would be a real asset for another person. It therefore cannot be right to exempt lifts as such. It depends on what the lifts are used for but here again there is a difficulty. There may be times when the hon. Gentleman and I wish there were a lift instead of stairs which we have to walk up to the Committee, but I do not think we would regard that as a reason for derating a lift in our own homes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 4th December 1973 ; c. 297–9.]
Of course, I would not regard that as a reason for derating a lift in someone's own home, but do valuers argue that although a moving staircase is provided for the assistance of a disabled person you and I might use it as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that therefore it must be

rated? Are they interpreting the spirit as well as the letter of Section 45?
7.15 p.m.
Organisations for disabled people are not at all happy about the operation of Section 45, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) knows, having gone into the problems of disablement a great deal more than I have. He can reflect the concern of those organisations on the matter.
Although I thought that Section 45 related almost exclusively to garages, and not such things as lifts, the Under-Secretary has the benefit of advice from the Box, and I do not have a copy of the Act with me. If central heating is provided to prevent hypothermia, as a medical requirement to cater for the person who cannot have a gas, coal or oil fire because of the possible fumes, I suppose that it could be argued that other members of the family also enjoy the heat and that therefore the central heating should be rated. But basically it has been provided for the disabled person.
I am not happy about the dichotomy of reply on the same point between one Under-Secretary and another. If my amendment is so harmless and states only what the present law is, there will not be the slightest harm if it goes into the Bill as well as being in the 1969 Act, for the sake of clarification.
In the clause the Government have made various amendments to the 1967 Act. It was apparently necessary to spell things out in this omnibus addition to Section 45. Let us spell out the amendment as well, so that there is no doubt in the minds of valuation officers, councils or anyone else that any equipment provided for a disabled person is derated because it is so provided. I see no harm in the amendment being included.

Mr. Carter-Jones: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again.
What causes me great concern is that valuation officers tend to be independent people. When we make inquiries we are told that they are completely independent and can do what they like.
The National Health Service supplies Possum equipment which allows disabled people, even those who are paralysed, to draw their curtains or lower the window from their bed. The official mind


of a district valuer is such that he will say that such equipment is an absolute luxury, but for a disabled person it is a necessity. If the district valuer assesses it for valuation purposes and thus increases the valuation of the house, the disabled person, with what the majority of hon. Members would describe as a necessity, will find himself paying more rates.
The hon. Gentleman was helpful and forthcoming but a little hesitant when he talked about heating for the disabled and the elderly. Heating is essential for the elderly. Is the Minister prepared to say that central heating installed for an elderly person to prevent hypothermia will be exempted?

Mr. Rossi: There is no real difference of intention between the two sides of the House. Hon. Gentlemen wish for adaptations to the homes of the disabled not to be taken into account for rating purposes. That is our wish also. The difference between us is that. I have, as a Minister, received advice that that desire is already met by legislation. I must follow the advice that I am given and urge the House to accept that advice. That is what I am doing, no more and no less.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) asked what was the harm in accepting the amendment if the point was

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Austick, David
Evans, Fred
Kaufman, Gerald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kerr, Russell


Beaney, Alan
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lamborn, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)
Lamond, James


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
Leonard, Dick


Booth, Albert
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Goldlng, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McBride, Neil


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacDonald, Mrs. Margo


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Mackie, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)


Concannon, J. D.
Hooson, Emlyn
Marks, Kenneth


Cronin, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hunter, Adam
Mayhew, Christopher


Dalyell, Tarn
Janner, Greville
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
Mitchell. R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

already covered in another Act. I thought that I had made clear the objection to that. The amendment goes far beyond adaptations to the homes of the disabled. The hon. Gentleman said that theatres and all other public places which made adaptations for the disabled should receive rating exemptions. That would be to carry the exemptions to extremes. It is neither in the interests of individual disabled persons nor of disabled persons as a class for such an exemption to be given. They would not be affected financially by the exemption. It would merely affect financially the commercial undertaking. We wish, by means of other legislation or byelaws, to impose an obligation on public places to provide such facilities without financial inducement. We hope that those who run theatres and other public places will wish to provide that service willingly and voluntarily without having to be offered a financial inducement.

If there is a difference between us on the amendment, it is only on that narrow point. If hon. Gentlemen wish to press the amendment simply on that narrow point, I am obliged to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 156.

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wainwright, Edwin


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wallace, George


Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Ogden, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Weitzman, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wellbeloved, James


O'Malley, Brian
Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Orme, Stanley
Steel, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Palmer, Arthur
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stott, Roger
Woof, Robert


Radice, Giles
Taverne, Dick



Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Tinn, James
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tope, Graham
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Varley, Eric G.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Parkinson, Cecil


Astor, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Awdry, Daniel
Hawkins, Paul
Pounder, Rafton


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hicks, Robert
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Benyon, W.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Bidwell, Sydney
S. James A.(Southampton, Test)
Raison, Timothy


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Redmond, Robert


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn, Dame Patricia
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Rost, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sainsbury, Timothy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott, Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wlck & L'mlngton)


Churchill, W. S.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Soref, Harold


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Spence, John


Cockeram, Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Kinsey, J. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Lane, David
Sutcliffe, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dixon Piers
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tebbit, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveridge, John
Temple, John M.


Emery, Peter
Luce, R. N.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Trew, Peter


Fell, Anthony
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton)
Maginnls, John E.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Molyneaux, James
Wilkinson, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus



Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 23

BODIES REPRESENTING LOCAL AUTHORITIES

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 25, line 7, leave out from 'represent' to end of line 9 and insert:
'authorities in England to which this Part of this Act applies, or as the case may be such authorities in Wales'.
This amendment slightly varies the wording of Clause 23(2) which describes who the representative bodies for England and Wales are to be. Under the present wording the representative bodies are to represent local authorities and to be concerned with administration in local government. The revised wording puts it beyond doubt that they can also represent other types of authority within Clause 24(1) of the Bill, particularly water authorities. Obviously there will be consultation with all the interests concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 25, line 25, at end insert:
'(6A) Where, in accordance with subsection (6) above, a representative body arrange for the publication of a report submitted to them under subsection (4) above, they may also arrange for the report to be published with an annex containing such comments on the report as they think appropriate.
(6B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6A) above, comments made by a representative body by virtue of that subsection may relate to particular classes of authorities to which this Part of this Act applies'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 13, in page 25, line 25, at end insert:
'and shall add to such reports their views thereon which shall be taken into account by the appropriate commission in the execution of their functions under this Act'.
and Government Amendment No. 14.

Mr. Rossi: The purpose of these amendments is to increase the powers of representative bodies in relation to reports of the two commissions. Amendment No. 59 deals with reports under subsection (4) and Amendment No. 14 deals with the recommendations and conclusions which the commissions may reach in their annual financial reviews under Clause 22(2). These amendments are

chiefly intended to meet points put forward by the local authority associations. I hope the House will accept them.

Mr. Oakes: We agree with these amendments. In fact Amendments Nos. 59 and 14 do a better job than our Amendment No. 13. I thank the Government for taking this point in Committee and in implementing it on Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 25, line 25, at end insert:

'(6A) In transmitting to local authorities recommendations or conclusions conveyed by either of the Commissions (in accordance with section 22(12) above) the representative body concerned may make such comments on those recommendations or conclusions as they think appropriate.'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Clause 24

AUTHORITIES SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION

Mr. Marks: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 25, line 37, at end insert:
'(e) any rent scrutiny board, rent assessment panel or rent tribunal'.
The purpose of the Ombudsman, as I see it, is to protect the public and give them access to an independent inquiry in cases where there may have been maladministration in a Government Department or, in the case of this Bill, a local authority. The public have other means of complaint direct to the Departments or through their Members of Parliament, and they use that channel. They may also make a complaint to local councillors, and they also use that channel. They also have some sanction in the fact that they elect their Members of Parliament and councillors.
One of the great sources of grievance at present is not Government Departments or local authorities. It is true that they are part of the establishment which people have a natural tendency to grumble about, since they affect their everyday lives in great detail. Another source of suspicion and grumbling relates to the quasi-judicial bodies concerned with rents. I refer to rent scrutiny panels, rent assessment boards and rent tribunals. In a sense the rent scrutiny panel is an overlord of a council and its tenants. Under the Housing Finance Act local authorities decide on fair rents for their council


houses. These can be discussed in committee, with the Press present, and in open council.
The tenants may not agree that rents are fair and may say that they are too high—in other words, they may object to those rents. But whether or not the tenants object, the rent scrutiny boards will examine and decide on fair rents. Those boards do not meet in public. They may give reasons for their decision to the local authority, but they do not give them to the tenants and the local authority can ask them to think again. This appears to be a surprisingly secret operation for a body against whose decision there is no appeal.
Who are these rent scrutiny panels? Frankly, I have not seen a list of their members and I do not know whether one is published. According to the Minister in Committee, they are people
qualified to exercise a judgment on this sort of matter.
He continued
They are not all property developers or anything of that sort.
They are apparently chosen from members of rent assessment panels, the group that looks into rent rises in the private sector. But certain members of rent assessment panels cannot become members of rent scrutiny boards, namely, councillors and tenants. There is a deep suspicion of the rent scrutiny boards among both local authorities and tenants.
In regard to the rent increases which we have seen so far, it would appear that the idea of fair rents as adopted by the rent scrutiny boards is on a higher level than that adopted by tenants and certainly higher than the level local authorities have in mind. I believe that the intervention of the Ombudsman would be helpful in easing suspicion in the minds of the public and in examining cases of possible maladministration. Can the Minister say whether the Parliamentary Commissioner will be able to investigate the appointments made by the Secretary of State?
When this matter was raised in Committee the Minister resisted a similar amendment, on the ground that the decisions of these bodies were judicial and not administrative. He said

it has emerged from today's discusssion that there is concern about the matters. I still retain the view that the commissioner is not the right person to look into the administration of these tribunals, boards or committees. But I am puzzled as to why the board, as opposed to the rent assessment committees and rent tribunals, conduct their business in private. This is not the right Bill to correct the matter. There will be, I hope, a housing Bill before the House soon and, in that connection, it may be right that we should look at this point again. I will certainly have words with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on this worrying point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th December 1973 ; c. 337–9.]
I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on the words that he had with his hon. Friend. The Housing Bill 1974 is now, presumably, drafted. We have been promised that we shall see it in print in a few days. Are rent scrutiny panels and the other bodies mentioned in that Bill?
I believe that the issue is bigger than that. More and more the private citizen and the councils that he elects, and for that matter, the trade union officers and the Consumer Association officers whom he elects, are coming under the domination of non-elected bodies meeting, often in private, and deciding on his rent, his pay and the prices that he pays. He does not regard them as his protectors. On the contrary. If the Ombudsman is to be regarded as the protector of the citizen's rights, he should have power to investigate these bodies.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the amendment.

Mr. A. J. Beith: should like to reinforce briefly what was said by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and to ask the Minister to look again at the position of rent scrutiny boards. Many tenants are not yet aware of the extent of the effect of the boards on their future rents, but local authorities are aware of it.
The Secretary of State has received representations from Amble Urban District Council concerning the lack of any appeal procedure against decisions by the rent scrutiny boards. Other local authorities are also anxious about the matter and are aware of the difficulties of getting any comeback against rent scrutiny boards in cases of bad rent judgments.
I should like the Minister to put from his mind any idea that concern is necessarily part of any general attack on the


Housing Finance Act. Many of us are critical of the Act, but the specific point concerning rent scrutiny boards and the lack of appeal against them has aroused a great deal of concern among local authorities which involve all parties. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that his hon. Friends take much the same view as I am putting forward. I hope he can offer some hope or, if not, that he will defer to the pressure from this side of the House to deal with the lack of any appeal procedure against rent scrutiny board decisions. In the absence of any alternative, the Local Government Commissioner seems to be our best hope.

Mr. George Cunningham: I want briefly to reinforce what has been said and to make one comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said. He implied that the secrecy of the rent scrutiny boards was mandatory. I understand that that is not so. The secrecy in which the rent scrutiny boards operate is to a great extent self-chosen. They could meet in public if they wished. To be more accurate, this secrecy is not laid upon them by statute, but they are encouraged to meet in secret by the Department. If a particular rent scrutiny board decided in its discretion that it wanted to meet in public or to admit representatives of the tenants whose rents were being decided, I understand that there would be no statutory bar to that being done. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm this. While the Department might, and I think does, encourage the boards to meet in secret, it has no statutory right to enforce them to do so.
Many members of rent scrutiny boards are most unhappy about the manner in which they are bound or have chosen to meet. Most members of the boards are also members of rent assessment panels, as my hon. Friend said. It seems to them that they are meeting with less regard for natural justice in their rent scrutiny capacities than in their capacities as members of rent assessment panels, when parties can be present and individual flats and houses are visited and their facilities looked at in great detail. By contrast, the rent scrutiny boards look at an occasional flat and compare it with flats in the private sector. They cannot

possibly get round to all the flats and houses whose rents they are determining.
There is great dissatisfaction even now among tenants about the likely result of the rent scrutiny boards. There is likely to be much more dissatisfaction when the results are formally brought out.
I hope that the Minister will take account of the great, though largely unexpressed, dissatisfaction on the part of members of rent scrutiny boards.

7.45 p.m.

Mr, Graham Page: The Rent Act 1968 and the Housing Finance Act 1972 together give the Secretary of State power to appoint rent assessment panels, which form a pool of talent, as it were, for the personnel of the three bodies referred to in the amendment. The panels consist of lawyers, valuers and laymen from whom are chosen the members of the three types of body mentioned in the amendment: rent assessment committees, to hear objections against rent officers' assessments of fair rents for private unfurnished accommodation ; rent tribunals, to determine reasonable rents for private furnished accommodation ; and rent scrutiny boards, to consider rent assessments made by local authorities for council housing. The rent scrutiny board is the one that has received most criticism in the debate.
All members of the panels are appointed either by the Secretary of State or, on his recommendation, by the Lord Chancellor. This differentiates them sharply from the bodies to which Part III of the Bill is intended to apply—namely, local authorities, joint boards of local authorities, police authorities and water authorities, all of which are wholly or largely composed of locally-elected councillors. I must stress the independence of the panels from the control of either central or local government.
The authorities to which Part III may be extended by subsection (2) are those established under Act of Parliament and having the power to levy a rate or issue a precept. Of course, rent assessment panels and the bodies constituted from them are outside the letter and the spirit of these provisions.
Rent assessment committees and rent tribunals do not operate in the public sector at all. They act as independent arbiters between private landlords and their


tenants. Therefore, they would be outside the intention of Part III for submitting local government matters to local commissioners. An appeal against alleged misdirections by such bodies, and, indeed, against rent scrutiny boards, may be taken to the courts. The rent assessment committees and the rent tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies in function as well as in status.

Mr. George Cunningham: Very quasi.

Mr. Page: I do not think it is right for the hon. Gentleman to say that about the rent assessment committees and rent tribunals. The argument on the rent scrutiny boards is quite different.

Mr. Cunningham: indicated assent.

Mr. Page: But I will dispose of these two first. They are quasi-judicial bodies in function as well as in status. Parties may appear before them to state their cases, and they are subject to regulations by the Council on Tribunals.
The main point of objection to including these bodies within Part III is one of considerable substance. It is that they bear no relation to the bodies for which Part III is intended, and I do not think that it would be possible to accommodate them in that part of the Bill. To add them in the place suggested by the amendment would turn them into local authorities for the purpose of this part of the Bill, which again seems rather ridiculous, and they would be part of the representative bodies set up to co-operate with the commissioners.
During the debate in Committee on a similar amendment I undertook to consider the possibility of allowing rent scrutiny boards to meet in public. That was the main point on which I thought I could assist the hon. Gentleman in the potent argument he put forward about some form of public hearing by the boards. It is a contentious question, but it is being considered by the Advisory Committee on Fair Rents at the request of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, and any recommendations which the committee makes will be carefully considered by my hon. Friend.
I remind the House that my hon. Friend is responsible for the Bill that was presented to the House today on the subject

of housing and planning. There will, therefore, be an opportunity to take into account the recommendations of the advisory committee. I was asked whether there was anything in the Bill about that now. The answer is that there is not because we are awaiting the advisory committee's report.

Mr. Cunningham: Is it permissible under the statutes for a rent scrutiny board to meet in public if it wishes?

Mr. Page: Yes. That could be done. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a matter of practice that the boards have chosen to meet in private, I think mainly because of the question of the rents payable by individuals.
I must emphasise and acknowledge the difference in argument between the two bodies which I have discussed so far, the rent assessment committees and the rent tribunals, and the rent scrutiny boards.

Mr. Cunningham: May we take it that not only has a rent scrutiny board no statutory obligation to meet in secret but that it is not under any departmental pressure or persuasion to do so?

Mr. Page: I was trying to duck that question from the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot answer it off the cuff. I shall endeavour to find out whether any instructions on this subject have gone out from my Department to the boards or whether they have been given any guidance on how they should conduct their affairs. I should be sorry if we were to direct them on this subject from the centre, but I repeat that I cannot give an answer off the cuff.
Rent scrutiny boards are appointed from the panel. They are independent bodies. They are outside local government, and therefore it would be wrong to bring them within the jurisdiction of the local commissioners established by the Bill.
It is not true to say that there is no appeal from them. The Housing Finance Act requires a rent scrutiny board to allow a period of two months between the publishing of its report on a local authority's provisional assessment of fair rents and the final determination of those rents. Within that period the tenants are asked for their views by the authority, which should then co-ordinate its views


and those of the tenants before resubmitting its assessment to the board. There is a form of appeal against the board's first decision which can be made by representations by tenants during that period of two months when the report lies before a final decision is made upon it.
In addition, if the authority—or the tenant—believes that the board has misdirected itself in reaching its decision, it is at liberty to ask the court to decide the matter.

Mr. Julius Silverman: As the rent scrutiny boards meet in secret and do not disclose the reasons for their decisions, how is it possible for tenants or local authorities to submit an appeal to a higher court on the question of misdirection?

Mr. Page: There is the preliminary report which lies for two months. The tenants can consider the effect of that report and make representations upon it. Therefore, at that stage they can see whether there was a misdirection. I appreciate that this is a difficult matter to bring before the High Court. There has to be a definite breach of natural justice, as it were, before one can take the matter to the High Court.
I ask the House to await the report of the Advisory Committee on Fair Rents on this subject, with the knowledge that there is legislation in which an amendment could be made to the procedure of the rent scrutiny boards. I still feel that the right way to meet the complaints that have been made during the debate is to deal with the procedure of the boards rather than to bring them within the purview of the local commissioners.
All three boards have to decide measures in a quasi-judicial way. I therefore do not think that it is right to bring them within the jurisdiction of the commissioner who is dealing with the administration of local affairs by elected councillors. I think that this is the wrong Bill to do that, even if the complaints against the boards are justified.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am encouraged by the Minister's statement that the Advisory Committee on Fair Rents is to examine the desirability of the proceedings of rent

scrutiny boards being held in public. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a line of demarcation between the rents of public authority houses and those occupied by private individuals? It is right and proper that rent scrutiny boards should have reservations about public hearings involving private tenants, but surely the situation with regard to council house rents is completely different.
Let me illustrate the point by telling the House what happened in Manchester. The city has 90,000 council houses. The housing and finance committees examined the whole question of the level of council house rents and came to the conclusion that it would be fair and proper to increase rents by 5p per week. The provisions of the Housing Finance Act oblige the authority to increase them by 50p per week. Naturally, the city council said, "Let us send our proposals to the rent scrutiny board."
There was no public access to the proceedings before the board and, regrettably the board did not examine those proposals soon enough to prevent the 50p increase being imposed. Quite naturally and understandably, council house tenants in Manchester and the Greater Manchester area thought that they were entitled to know what happened in the proceedings involving the board on this subject. In a matter of individual tenants or houses it is not unreasonable for people to hesitate about making the proceedings open to the public, but when 90,000 council house rents are involved rent scrutiny boards should be required to allow access to the proceedings by the public and the Press. Why should there be this conspiracy of secrecy about the levels of council house rents?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I want to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friends. Although the Minister says that, technically, this matter comes without the general provisions for the commissioner, because rent scrutiny boards are not local authority bodies, our whole point is that they deal with matters which are local authority matters and have always been at the discretion and determination of local authorities. Therefore, from a common-sense point of view, they come within the broad compass of events which are dealt with by the commissioner. We need the commissioner even more in these circumstances than in other matters


normally dealt with by local authorities, because of the issue of secrecy which has been mentioned.
It is not very satisfactory to be fobbed off with the offer that a body will look into the matter of the secrecy of hearings at some indeterminate date and that, perhaps, another Bill will take cognisance of its findings. Why should we not make sure that there is at least a glimmer of light here to which hon. Members with constituencies like those of myself and my hon. Friends who have spoken this evening can look?
It is not only the determinations of the board which are in question. We cannot even get determinations from some of the boards. There is utter confusion about rents in many of our constituencies. We can understand neither on what basis the boards work nor when a determination will be made.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I shall not detain the House for long. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) has made the case in an excellent manner.
In matters of social security or unemployment benefit, an aggrieved individual has the right of first, second and third stages of personal appeal. The Minister made great play of the fact that the members of rent assessment panels and rent tribunals are appointed by the Secretary of State or by the Lord Chancellor, as though that gave them some divine right or some personified decency. The Minister then referred to the quasi-judicial status of rent assessment panels and rent tribunals. The fact remains, however, that there is a recourse to appeal against even judicial decisions. I fail to see, therefore, in what circumstances the Minister's argument applies.
The Minister opposes our amendment on the basis that the commissioner deals purely with local authorities, but I should have thought, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, that the fixing of rents, particularly local authority rents, is one of the most important of functions. Surely that is the major thing which the commissioner should have the right to investigate. If an individual citizen has a right of appeal where he feels that a Government Department has done him down or where he has received bad treatment from the

National Health Service, he has recourse to appeal to an ombudsman. But in this most important aspect of an individual's life he has no appeal.
The three bodies referred to in the amendment are extra-parliamentary bodies, and there is no recourse to a true appeal of any sort. Clearly, they are a complete anathema in a democracy. Unless we have the protection sought in the amendment and unless the Minister is prepared to concede on this matter, I must invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Government in the Lobby.

Mr. Graham Page: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to reply to the points which have been raised.
I think that there is a misconception as to the duties of the commissioner. The commissioner is not appointed as court of appeal to deal with the merits of an issue. He is not appointed to decide whether a tribunal of any sort has reached the right decision or the wrong decision. He is not a court of appeal, nor, indeed, is the Parliamentary Commissioner. The commissioner is there to see whether there has been any maladministration, which is something very different.
I am very sympathetic to the argument that there is apparently no form of appeal, no way of reviewing the decision of a tribunal of this nature. In many other cases we have provided machinery for reviewing decisions. This is a matter which is not part of the Bill or of this part of the Bill. I do not know where we should get to in the Bill if we started appointing courts of appeal for all tribunals of whatever kind they might be.
We are considering here the appointment of the person who is familiarly called the ombudsman to look into administration—not to look into judicial issues and to decide the merits of those issues. If a proper court of appeal or some form of appeal is provided from these tribunals, that may be the right solution. I have sympathy with that argument. But it is not something which I can introduce into the Bill, certainly not into this part of it.

Mr. George Cunningham: I should like to direct the Minister's attention to a comparison with what is often called the


quasi-judicial function of a Minister when he is considering a planning case, a compulsory purchase order or something of that kind, which has been investigated in a quasi-judicial way by a public hearing and which is then submitted to the Minister for his decision. The Minister's activities there are not subject to appeal in the judicial sense, but the manner in which he discharges his function is subject to the ombudsman's investigations in respect of maladministration. Surely it is that comparison which one should seek to apply in this case. As there is no other way of finding out whether a rent scrutiny board has administered its activities properly, it would be right to provide an ombudsman-type operation to give exactly the same oversight of that action as that to which the Minister is subject in his planning decision.

Mr. Graham Page: A Minister is part of the central Government administration, which is within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. In this case a local commissioner is appointed to look into the administration of local government. T do not consider these tribunals as part of that administration. They are separate bodies.

Mr. Silverman: The Minister has referred to the distinction between local government and the central Government on this issue. But local government also exercises other quasi-judicial functions, for instance the quasi-judicial function of a planning authority. Does this mean that if quasi-judicial functions are applied the ombudsman will not be able to investigate the function of a planning authority?

Mr. Graham Page: The ombudsman can investigate the functions and the administration of the functions, but he is not there to decide as an appeal court whether the planning authority has made the right decision. If the planning authority has not administered the application properly, that is maladministration into which the local commissioner can investigate.
This has been a worthwhile debate in that it has brought out the discontent and the complaints about the present procedure. It is not a subject which we have ignored and disregarded. It has been put to the advisory committee and I suggest

that it would be advisable for the House to wait for the information which will come forward. That is not fobbing off the matter in any way because there is the right vehicle—namely, other legislation—in which to put such amendments as the House may see fit. At this stage it would be wrong for me to include such appeals within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman.

Mr. Marks: With the leave of the House——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I must make it clear that the hon. Gentleman has an absolute right of reply. He does not need leave to reply. Whoever moves an amendment has the right of reply. Other hon. Members who may have their names on the amendment have not that right. The Government, who are in charge of the Bill, generally speak after the mover and they also have the right of reply because it is a Government Bill. Similarly, if it is a Government amendment, the mover has the right of reply but no other Member on either side of the House would have that right. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) has an absolute right of reply and need not ask for leave.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that enlightenment. Having heard Ministers speaking twice in a debate and asking for the leave of the House, I thought that I should try to emulate them.
I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he is a reasonable man and that he has some sympathy with the point which is being made. However, he has not convinced me that the ombudsman should not be able to ask a lot more about the rent scrutiny boards. What happens if the ombudsman has to inquire into fair rents as set by a local authority? Does he inquire into how the fair rents were set in the first place and into what the tenants did and their objections? Does he only ask whether there was any maladministration and then suddenly stop? Cannot the ombudsman ask what happened in the room where the rents were really fixed no matter what the council or the tenants say? It seems that he should have that power just as the Parliamentary Commissioner investigating something to do with the Department of


Health and Social Security in which a tribunal has been involved should be able to consider whether the tribunal was working properly, whether the person who came before it had his proper rights and that he was made aware of them in front of the board or tribunal. I am convinced that that is fair, no matter what is said

Division No. 37.]
AYES
[8.14 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Saltord, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Austick, David
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hooson, Emlyn
Orbach, Maurice


Beaney, Alan
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Beith, A. J.
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bishop, E. S.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Booth, Albert
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Buchan, Norman
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Ecclea)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Catle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Lawson, George
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stallard, A. W.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steel, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dalyell, Tam
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
McBride, Neil
Stott, Roger


Deakins, Eric
MacDonald, Mrs. Margo
Taverne, Dick


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Tope, Graham


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Eric G.


Dunn, James A.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Fred
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Marsden, F.
Watkins, David


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Weitzman, David


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wellbeloved, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Meacher, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, james (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Hamilton, William (File, W.)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhart, Philip


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cockeram, Eric
Gray, Hamish


Astor, John
Cooke, Robert
Green, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Cooper, A. E.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Awdry, Daniel
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cormack, Patrick
Gurden, Harold


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj -Gen. Jack
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Benyon, W.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dixon, Piers
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Haselhurst, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Hawkins, Paul


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Hayhoe, Barney


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fidler, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bray, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Holland, Philip


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foster, Sir John
Holt, Miss Mary


Butier, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman
Hordern, Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fry, peter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Giyn, Dr. Alan
Howell, Raiph (Norfolk, N.)

about quasi-judicial duties, and that the ombudsman, if he is to perform his duties efficiently, should have that right.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 144.

Hunt, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Speed, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Morrison, Charles
Stodart, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Neave, Airey
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Jopling, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Sutcliffe, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kimball, Marcus

Tebbit, Norman


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Kinsey, J. R.
Parkinson, Cecil
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kirk, Peter
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lamont, Norman
Pink, R. Bonner
Trew, Peter


Lane, David
Pounder, Rafton
Waddington, David


Langtord-Holt, Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Loveridge, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Ward, Dame Irene


Luce, R. N.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Weatherill, Bernard


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Redmond, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


MacArthur, Ian
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McMaster, Stanley
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wlggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilkinson, John


Maginnis, John E.
Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Mawby, Ray
Sainsbury, Timothy
Younger, Hn. George


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Moate, Roger
Smith, Dudley (W'wiek & L'mlngton)
Mr. David Walder.


Molyneaux, James
Soref, Harold

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 25, line 37, at end insert:
(e) any New Town Development Corporation and the Commission for the New Towns."—[Mr. Oakes.]

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: any of my constituents have the good fortune to live in Corby, which is a new town. It is an industrial town—a steel town—in which 89 per cent. of the manual workers work for the British Steel Corporation.
As a new town Corby is undoubtedly a success. Fortunately—this is an important part of my argument—today there is little friction, difficulty or dispute between the urban district council and the new town development corporation. I am worried that, if we reach a situation in which the commissioner can intervene in the work of the urban district council but not in that of the new town development corporation, in a dispute all the documents from the urban district council might be available to the commissioner but none of those from the corporation would be available to the commissioner.
The citizens of Corby need the protection of the commissioner against the new town development corporation just as much as they do against the urban district council. I have served on a local authority. I greatly welcome the whole of this clause. I have every reason to believe that the new town development corporation is a good one, but that is not the

point. Neither the people of Corby nor I believe that the corporation should be protected from the commissioner in this way. The corporation should be treated in the same way as the urban district council. Accordingly, I support the amendment.

Mr. Rossi: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) paid tribute to the relationship between those living in Corby and the new town development corporation. That is a relationship which exists in every new town development, and it is a very fortunate feature.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why the commissioner should not have jurisdiction over the corporation in the same way as he has over local authorities. The reason is this. Local authorities are answerable only to the electorate. It has been felt, and there has been public pressure to this effect, that it would be well to appoint a kind of ombudsman to look into questions of administration in local authority matters and not just leave it to election time for the electorate as a whole to express their approval or dissatisfaction with the way their authority regulates their affairs.
A new town development corporation is not appointed in the same way and is not answerable to the electorate. It is answerable to the Secretary of State who is, in effect, the commissioner—if that is the right word—for the new town corporation. The Secretary of State is able to investigate any complaint against a


development corporation which is referred to him and he would be expected to do so if it appeared to be of a serious nature. Failure on the Secretary of State's part to investigate would make him, in turn, answerable to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need have any qualms about the matter. There is already a procedure for investigating the activities of new town development corporations should the occasion ever arise, as we hope that it never will. It is a different procedure stemming from the fact that it is a different kind of body created in a different kind of way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: In supporting the amendment it is fair to say that new town corporations can be, and I suggest sometimes are, bureaucratic in their outlook. At times they tend to give brusque treatment to citizens—certainly if my experience is anything to go by. In discussing the attitude of the new town corporations with local councillors I get the impression that half their complaints are the direct result of the brusque treatment that the new town corporations tend to hand out. On that score alone I should certainly support the amendment. It should also be clear that a number of urban districts, and eventually district councils, do and will undertake much the same functions as the new town corporations.
It seems complete nonsense that, in more or less parallel functions, the commissioner has the right to investigate whether it be an urban district council or one of the new district councils as they will become after 1st April. If the commissioner has the right to investigate parallel activities I fail to see why the Government should offer objection to the amendment. It is true, as the Parlimaentary Secretary said, that the Secretary of State has the right to investigate, but we are not so much interested in the Secretary of State investigating as in the commissioner. For that reason we support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 26, line 2, leave out 'to a rating authority'.

Clause 24 specifies the bodies which are subject to investigation by the local commission. The main category we have discussed is local authorities. Provision is also made for the list to be extended by Order in Council to other authorities having the power to levy a rate or to issue a precept to a rating authority

The amendment seeks to leave out the words "to a rating authority". The reason is that there are some types of body which might suitably be brought within that jurisdiction and who might have the power to precept only on county councils which are not themselves rating authorities. An example is conservancy authorities. It is to extend the scope in that way that we seek the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 31, line 4, at end insert:
'(2A) Apart from identifying the authority or authorities concerned, the report shall not—

(a) mention the name of any person, or
(b) contain any particulars which, in the opinion of the Local Commissioner, are likely to identify any person and can be omitted without impairing the effectiveness of the report, unless, after taking into account the public interest as well as the interests of the complainant and of persons other than the complainant, the Local Commissioner considers it necessary to mention the name of that person or to include in the report any such particulars.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 19.

Mr. Rossi: These two amendments simply alter the emphasis in relation to the identification of individuals in the reports of local investigations and are designed to meet the views expressed by the local authority associations in the working party. At present Clause 29 leaves it to each local commissioner to decide to what extent his reports shall mention the names of individuals. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that the report would not normally contain names apart from the name of the authority concerned. The names would appear only if, in the public interest and in the interest of the complainant and those concerned, publication was required.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 31, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
'(6) The Local Commissioner may, if he thinks fit after taking into account the public interest as well as the interests of the complainant and of persons other than the complainant, direct that a report specified in the direction shall not be subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) above about its publication.'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 34

REMOVAL OR RELAXATION OF CONTROLS AFFECTING CERTAIN LOCAL AUTHORITY FUNCTION

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 36, line 24, after 'London', insert:

'the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple, the Under Treasurer of the Middle Temple';

No. 20, in page 36, line 37, after 'Scilly', insert 'a port health authority'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 40

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, APPLICATION AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 39, line 6, after 'II', insert 'other than sections (Rating surcharge on unused office, &c, property) and 21'.

No. 22, in page 39, line 6, after '34 insert', Extension of power of local authorities to make advances,'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Schedule 1

TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN EXISTING GRANTS

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 42, line 49, at end insert:
'(cc) Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1966 (grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure on public open spaces) to local authorities other than Parish and Community Councils'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 62, in page 43, line 1, leave out 'section 8 or', and Amendment No. 63, in page 43, line 3, leave out 'public open spaces and'.

Mr. Oakes: These amendments are exploratory. The National Playing Fields Association and a number of other bodies

are worried at the fact that the specific grant relating to playing fields will be abolished under the Bill. They fear that many councils, especially parish councils and particularly the smaller ones, may seek not to make available playing fields and public open spaces in their areas. We are not so much concerned with the other aspects of the exclusion from specific grants—port health authorities and so on—but we are concerned about playing fields. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that playing fields and open spaces will still be provided although the specific grant will disappear. In the light of such an assurance, I hope to be able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The general policy behind the new provision for grants in the Bill is that we should as much as possible move to the general grant, the block grant, leaving the local authorities to decide how to spend it. Of course, within the relevant expenditure one must include expenditure on the subjects of these grants in future years. This is certainly the intention in our usual discussions with the local authority associations, so that we take into account the global expenditure on such facilities as open space and include that in the relevant expenditure. The percentage contribution is then made against that relevant expenditure and the local authorities will be at liberty to decide for themselves how the money is spent.
It will be for those interested in playing fields to make their representations locally to the local authorities for such open spaces and playing fields as are required within their area. It is right that this should be directed locally and not centrally. This is the basis of the removal of these grants into the global grant in the rate support grant, in so far as it is current expenditure. So far as it is capital expenditure, it may come within the locally-determined schemes allocation of money which local authorities can borrow in the normal way.
The whole idea is to leave the local authorities with the discretion, so that those who are interested in a particular subject can make their representations locally to those who know the local requirements far better than central Government. On those grounds I should have to resist the amendment, but I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member.
I should mention a technical point in connection with the notional loans borrowed by local authorities in earlier years which, it might seem, cannot be taken into account by way of the special grant for future years. This point was raised in a recent letter from the County Councils Association, which said:
A positive assurance was given to Berkshire County Council that the Government would continue to pay grant towards the notional loan charges on acquisitions of land completed prior to 1st April 1974. The wording of the Bill is such that the blanket provision of no grant being payable for 1974–75 and subsequently is applied to several different types of grant—e.g., capital and revenue grants.
The association sought an assurance that in that type of grant the payment would continue.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction replied on 23rd July:
I am now able to assure you that where such grants are being paid on a loan charge basis, we intend that payment should continue after 31st March.
I put that on record because there has been some doubt about it. I hope that my other remarks will have satisfied the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. James Tinn: The Minister's reply was most disappointing from the parish councils' point of view. The right hon. Gentleman's faith in local democracy working in the way he suggested from 1st April, bearing in mind that we shall then be dealing with very large authorities, and his conviction that these new large authorities will so conduct themselves so that small parishes will never feel dissatisfied over the provision of recreation areas and playing fields, illustrates an optimism that I cannot share.
Up to now parishes received or were able to receive a direct grant from the Department of the Environment. Now, they will be entirely dependent on whatever the local authority might choose to give them. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be expressing confidence that this will work out very well. I am not so sure. It would be a much better expression of local democracy if the money were paid directly to the parishes so that they could use it as they thought best.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn). As he clearly indicated, these grants for recreational facilities and playing fields were formerly paid directly to the parish council or the community council, but this will no longer be the case. What assurance will my right hon. Friend give that the district councils which will receive the grants will be prepared to pay part of the rate grant to the parish or community council for the provision of those facilities?
I am afraid I do not have the same confidence in the new district councils that my right hon. Friend perhaps feels. Parish councils, which have done a wonderful job for many years, will lose their ability to provide facilities for individual community areas and they will be put at a severe disadvantage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look still further at the problem.
I feel most strongly about the matter and I am sorry that there are not more people here to raise it now. The whole concept of local government seems to have been based on size and my right hon. Friend seems to feel that size creates efficiency. I do not agree. As has already been stated in the debate, local government will cost ratepayers and taxpayers considerably more after reorganisation than it ever did before and that is a great shame. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider this and it will be regrettable if the Opposition ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Oakes: With the leave of the House may I say that like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), I am most sympathetic to the rôle played by parish councils. That is why the amendment was put down. The parish councils, the National Playing Fields Association and bodies concerned with providing sporting facilities are worried for precisely the reasons my lion. Friend and the hon. Member mentioned—that some district councils will not make the provision within the parishes that the parish council, with the assistance of the specific grants, makes today.
For the purposes of our proceedings I was prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I endorse what has been said on both sides and I urge the Minister to ensure that this matter is examined again in another place. Parish councils have few powers but those they possess they exercise extremely well. They are the most democratic aspect of local government in Britain. They represent true and genuine local democracy. They fear for the loss of this grant, particularly by those parishes which will find themselves in metropolitan districts merged with authorities which do not have experience of parish councils. They do not know the powers of parish councils or the rôle which they play in the community.

8.45 p.m.

I hold the view, and I am sure that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Macclesfield do, too, that we ought to be considering ways and means of extending the parish council system into the towns. It seems to me essential to do that considering the complexity of local government structure, so that we have a coherent voice from the parish councils which are not bodies under pressure but are democratically elected groups. One of their few functions was to provide playing fields.

I shall possibly disappoint the hon. Member for Macclesfield, but I shall seek to withdraw the amendment in the hope that another like it may be proposed in another place where parish councils have many friends. I hope that an amendment will be pressed in another place so that this power—one of the few that parish councils have—may be retained and open spaces and playing fields may be provided by them, and that the parish councils will not be squeezed out by the larger district councils which do not understand, perhaps, the simple, domestic, every-day requirements of people in the parishes, such as playing fields. The larger councils think of perhaps larger matters, but district councils think of the immediate needs of the communities.

Mr. Graham Page: I trust I may be allowed to reply to the points which have been made. My hon. Friend the

Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that I thought that size was of the greatest value. I said nothing about the size of authorities. I have just as much confidence in parish councils as I have in district councils. I did not say anything about size.
My hon. Friend asked me for an undertaking that I would ensure that district councils would see that the money would go to the parish councils. Of course I can give no such undertaking. District councils are not responsible to me or to my right hon. and learned Friend or the Government or Whitehall. They are responsible to their electors.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said that parish councils had few powers. They have immensely increased powers under the Local Government Act 1972 and very much more money to spend on those powers. I thought that I had at least shown my friendship to parish councils by extending the successor parishes within the towns. The hon. Member is quite right in thinking that the next step is parish councils within the cities—within the built-up areas. This must come steadily with the development of local government.
I am sorry if I sound a little emotional about this, but I do not like being accused of not being a friend of parish councils after all that we have done for parishes in local government reorganisation.

Mr. Oakes: With the leave of the House, I would just point out that I did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of that for a moment. I know his views on that matter.
In the hope that this matter may be pursued in another place, and without any criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Strictly speaking, it cannot be withdrawn now, because the hon. Member withdrew it before, but he did not see, as I saw, that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) was on his feet to speak to the amendment, and so I called him. However, in all the circumstances, in this case I think we will overlook the rule.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2

ELEMENTS OF RATE SUPPORT GRANTS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 24, in page 46, line 8, leave out 'properties' and insert 'hereditaments'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we can take Government Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 inclusive.

Mr. Page: This amendment is required because the term "properties" does not include every item which is shown in the valuation list and which contributes to an authority's aggregate rateable value. In particular it does not include notional hereditaments which bodies, such as gas and electricity boards, are treated as occupying in a rating authority's area. The amendment is to ensure that the right phrases are used, and to that extent it is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 46, line 8, after 'authority', insert:
'including any hereditament which, by virtue of any enactment, any body is to be treated as occupying in that area'.

No. 26, in page 46, line 13, leave out 'property' and insert 'hereditament'.

No. 27, in page 46, line 16, leave out 'property' and insert 'hereditament'.

No. 28, in page 46, line 17, at beginning insert:
'Subject to any provision made by virtue of section 4(4A) of this Act and to paragraph 11 below'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 46, line 20, leave out from 'which' to second 'the' in line 21 and insert:
'in accordancbph (3) below is determined as the uniform rate in that year for'.
It will be convenient if we discuss Amendment No. 30 at the same time.
These amendments deal with the phrase "the uniform rate". Under Part III of Schedule 2 an authority's resources element is determined by multiplying its local deficiency in rateable value by the amount in the pound which is the general rate chargeable in that year throughout the whole of the authority's area. I have tried to explain earlier the way in which,

dealing with the resources element, the taxpayer comes in as a ratepayer for the deficiency in rateable value in any area.
The difficulty is that such a single general rate will not be readily identifiable in cases where, for one reason or another, different rates are levied in different parts of an authority's area. This is where we need to apply a differential rate throughout an area. The General Rate Act 1967 provides that, where the amount, such as a parish precept, is chargeable separately on only part of a rating area, it shall be levied on that part together with, and as an additional item of, the general rate. The number and importance of the amounts levied on parts only of a rating area will be greatly increased as a result of an order which will be laid before the House shortly dealing with differential rating.
We have to have this provision in the Bill to arrive at a uniform rate where the differential rating applies. The scheme for differential rating will phase the elimination of these differentials over a period of five years. During that period it is necessary to have this power to calculate the uniform rate. I regret the technicalities of this. It is really a drafting amendment to get the formulae right.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 46, line 29, at end insert:
'(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above "the uniform rate" in any year for the area of a local authority means the amount in the pound determined by dividing—

(a) so much of the total estimated expenditure to be incurred by the authority during that year (as mentioned in section 2(1) of the General Rate Act 1967) as falls to be met by the authority out of the general rate for that year, by
(b) the aggregate of the effective rateable values of all the hereditaments in the area of the authority determined as for the purposes of paragraph 9(1) above'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 46, line 29, at end insert:
'11.—(1) If, after the amount of the resources element payable to a local authority for any year has been determined under paragraph 10 above,—

(a) the rateable values of hereditaments in the authority's area are reduced with effect from a date on or before that which is relevant for determining the aggregate of the effective rateable values of all the hereditaments


in the authority's area for that year under paragraph 9 above, and
(b) the effect of that reduction is to produce a reduction in the aggregate of the effective rateable values of all the hereditaments in the authority's area which is of such a magnitude that, expressed as a percentage of the initially ascertained aggregate figure, it exceeds such percentage as may be specified for the purposes of this paragraph in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and
(c) the authority by notice in writing request the Secretary of State to give a direction under this paragraph,

the Secretary of State shall direct that the amount of the resources element payable to the authority for that year shall be recalculated in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph and a further payment on account of that element shall be made to the local authority accordingly.
(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) the rateable value per head of population of the local authority's area for the year concerned shall be recalculated under paragraph 9 above by treating the initially ascertained aggregate figure as reduced by the amount of the excess referred to in subparagraph (1)(b) above ; and
(b) subject to any provision made by virtue of section 4(4A) of this Act, paragraph 10 above shall have effect accordingly for the purpose of determining the amount which, on the basis of that recalculation, would have been payable to the authority for that year.

(3) The further payment referred to in subparagraph (1) above shall be an amount equal to the difference between the amount previously paid to the authority for the year concerned on account of the resources element and the amount determined as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above.
(4) In this paragraph "the initially ascertained aggregate figure", in relation to any year means the aggregate figure ascertained under paragraph 9(1)(a) above for the purposes of the first determination of the amount of the resources element payable to the authority in that year.
(5) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding that the actual aggregate amount of the resources element for the year concerned may have been specified in an order under section 4(1) of this Act, and if any amount has been so specified it shall be treated as having been increased to such amount as may be necessary to provide for any further payment made to a local authority under this paragraph'.
The amount of the resources element payable to an authority is determined in part by the amount of its local deficiency and rateable value. The deficiency is calculated by comparing the authority's aggregate rateable value per head with the national standard. The aggregate rateable value per head is based on the effective

rateable values of the hereditaments in the authority's area. The method of determining effective rateable value is to be specified in regulations.
Normally the effective rateable value of a hereditament will be the value shown for it in the valuation list as at a specified date. However, it often happens that the valuation list value of a property as at a particular date is reduced retrospectively following settlement of an appeal as to the valuation.
Where the hereditament is sizeable and the appeal relates to its value over a period of some years—this may happen with large industrial premises or blocks of flats—the authority may suddenly be faced with a requirement to repay a proportion of the rates paid on the property during those years. The local authority associations have represented to us that it would be only reasonable in those circumstances for the authorities' resources element entitlement for the years in question to be recalculated, taking account retrospectively of the change in the valuations of the property. Those representations were fair and proper and we have endeavoured in the amendment to take them into account and provide for the revaluation and the entitlement to resources element, if such occasion as I have described arises.
It is a long amendment, but it was necessary to cover all the points. We have met the representatives from the local authority associations on this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

THE COMMISSIONS

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 49, line 10, leave out 'All' and insert:
'Subject to paragraph 8A below, all'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it is convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

Mr. Rossi: The purpose of the amendments is to modify the arrangements for sharing out the cost of operating the local commissions. Paragraph 6 of the schedule provides for the expenses of the English Commission to be shared equally between county councils in England, together with the GLC and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.


Paragraph 7 provides for the division of the expenses of the Welsh Commission between county councils in Wales. Paragraph 8 provides that in both cases the division is to be on the basis of the product of a penny rate in each local authority area concerned. These arrangements only cover local authorities, and it is reasonable for part of the cost of running the system to be borne by authorities within the scope of Part III of the Bill which are not local authorities—for example, regional water authorities. The main amendment in this group allows this to be done by the Secretary of State by order contained in a statutory instrument, for the details obviously cannot be settled at this stage. The smaller amendments pave the way for the main amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 49, line 13, leave out 'All' and insert:
'Subject to paragraph 8A below, all'.
No. 34, in page 49, line 29, at end insert:
'8A.—(1) In relation to each of the Commissions, the Secretary of State may by order provide for such part of their expenses as may be specified in the order to be defrayed by such authorities (being authorities to which this Part of this Act applies other than those mentioned in paragraph 6 or 7 above) as may be so specified.
(2) Where two or more authorities are liable, by virtue of an order made under this paragraph, to defray part of the expenses of a Commission, the order shall provide for the apportionment of the amount concerned among those authorities.
(3) Paragraphs 6 and 7 above shall not apply in relation to so much of the expenses of a Commission as is, by virtue of any order made under this paragraph, to be defrayed by authorities other than those mentioned in those paragraphs.
(4) An order made under this paragraph shall be contained in a statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 49, line 39, at end insert:
' (3) The Commission shall, within fourteen days of taking any final decision as to the estimate for the next financial year, notify the appropriate representative body of the decision'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Government Amendment No. 36.

Mr. Rossi: The purpose of the amendments is to increase the powers of the representative bodies in relation to the expenditure of the local commissions. They are designed to meet points made by the associations of local authorities in the working party.
The Government did not seek this jurisdiction, but a provision on these lines was suggested by the associations and it seemed to be the most straightforward way of resolving the issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 49, line 39, at end insert:
'10.—(1) Where—

(a) a representative body have made observations on the estimate submitted to them in accordance with paragraph 9(1) above ;
(b) the Commission concerned have notified the representative body of their final decision, in accordance with paragraph 9(3) above ; and
(c) the representative body consider that the estimate is excessive ;

the representative body may refer the question to the Secretary of State.
(2) Where any question has been referred to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) above he may, if he considers that the expenditure of the Commission for the next financial year is, on the basis of the estimate, likely to be excessive, give such a direction to the Commission in relation to any matter affecting that expenditure as he considers necessary to ensure that it is not excessive.
(3) It shall be the duty of each of the Commissions to comply with any direction given to them by the Secretary of State under this paragraph.
(4) Any direction given by the Secretary of State under this paragraph may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction given by him.".—[Mr. Rossi.]

Schedule 5

MATTERS NOT SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION

9.0 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 50, line 32, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 34 and insert
'including the carrying out of works of building, construction or maintenance, and the procurement of goods and services necessary to discharge those functions'.
What the general public want to know is not matters that are not subject to investigation but matters that are. Happily they are contained in the schedule as


well, which refers to matters subject to investigation by the Commission for Local Administration.
I am sorry that I was not a member of the Standing Committee because I would have sought to make improvements in the schedule, which is couched in a series of confusing double and multiple negatives. I am sorry for the members of the public who need to consult the schedule, because they have to find out what is subject to investigation before they can start submitting complaints to their councillors and so to the commission.
Paragraph 3(2) lays down matters which are not subject to investigation—transactions relating to public passenger transport, dock or harbour undertakings, the provision of entertainment, the operation of industrial establishments and the operation of markets. Paragraph 3(3)(b) lays down that all other transactions are subject to investigation.
So far, so good. Then, however—and this is what I seek to amend—the paragraph contains a further negative:
'other than those'—
transactions—
'required for the procurement of the goods and services necessary to discharge those functions'.
I take it that "those functions" are
'functions exercisable under any public general Act'.
My amendment seeks to bring the procurement of all goods and services within the scope of investigation, and to make clear that works of building construction or maintenance by direct labour forces are also liable to investigation. I am not clear whether the direct labour forces could be held to be covered by the words
operation of industrial establishments
and therefore exempt, or whether they are excluded from that expression. As it is doubtful, it is much better to make it clear that they are excluded, if that is the Government's intention, and therefore liable to investigation. Also, it must be wrong that the supply of goods and services is altogether excluded from being subject to investigation.
Injustice in consequence of maladministration is what entitles someone to seek redress from the commission.
Private builders may suffer injustice in consequence of maladministration, if a local authority's purchasing procedure is not open to examination, not only to ensure that it is financially fair but to ensure that there is no undue favouritism of particular suppliers or bias against others.
A direct labour department may submit an over-optimistic tender for a contract and so win it. The over-optimism may be based on too low a calculation of overheads, or there may be an insufficient allowance for the probable rise in the cost of labour and materials during the period of the job. The private contractor tendering against the direct labour department must tender on a firm price basis. He is not in a position later to say "I am sorry. I made a mistake, and now I want to increase my tender by 15 per cent." It is important that the tendering should be seen to be fair.
I am told that in one scheme handled by the Glasgow City Council direct labour department only 10 per cent. was allowed for increased costs over a two-year construction period, whereas a 19 per cent. increase occurred in one year alone. On another job that direct labour department applied to increase its estimate by 17 per cent. only three months after the estimate had been accepted. Can this be regarded as fair treatment? Should it not be subject to investigation by the commissioner?
A Ministry of Housing Circular 57/69 recommended "The Manual of Principles of Financial and Management Control of New Construction carried out by Direct Labour". The manual urges that treasurers should produce financial records of the outcome of all direct labour work together with a comparison of the amount that would have been paid to contractors. It also urges the publication of profit and loss accounts for new construction work carried out by direct labour organisations. Repairs, maintenance and improvements are not included. Many local authorities do not observe the recommendations contained in the manual. They are not mandatory.
Many local authorities which have a direct labour force believe that it is doing a useful job. Councillors and officials rely on the argument that direct labour must save money because it does


not have to make a profit. A treasurer's report would show whether that was so. It is no good relying on theory.
It is suggested that the existence of the district auditor is a safeguard, but he operates normally only an a sampling basis and, unless he is alerted, there is no guarantee that he will inspect these accounts. Proper accounts should be provided which truly show the position. The report and accounts should be readily available and in a form that gives sufficient information to permit a judgment of the efficiency of direct labour.
In Monmouthshire recently a ratepayers' representative could not obtain sufficient information from documents available from the county council before audit to enable a case to be put to the district auditor. Some of the information offered to him was in the form of an unintelligible computer print-out.
There is clear scope for investigation to ensure proper impartiality in the opening of tenders and in the measuring of work. An independent judgment will be possible on the basis of a treasurer's report based on an independent valuation. In this way the public will be able to judge whether there is maladministration. Therefore, both in purchasing and direct labour tendering the commissioner should be able to investigate maladministration. That is not achieved by the schedule, but it is achieved by the amendment.

Mr. Rossi: I have often had the great pleasure of serving with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in Standing Committees, and I am well aware of the assiduous way in which he scrutinises Bills of this nature. He is not slow to pick out any tautology or phrase that is less than clear.
Having looked at Schedule 5, I am not surprised that my hon. Friend immediately lit upon its provisions to point to a series of negatives which require a great deal of threading through to obtain the ultimate sense of what is intended. As he has drawn attention to the matter, it behoves me to give a few words of explanation of what is intended by the schedule.
The purpose of paragraph 3(3) in the schedule is to declare that certain types of transaction are open to investigation by local commissioners, notwithstanding

he generality of earlier wording which excludes contractual or commercial matters.
The types of transaction which thus becomes subject to investigation are land transactions and certain transactions carried out pursuant to any public general Act, other than—and this is where we begin to get a little involved—the types of business wholly excluded by paragraph 3(2) as being of a basically commercial nature, for example, public passenger transport, or transactions in connection with the procurement of goods and services, which are also commercial in nature.
The particular object of mentioning public general Acts of Parliament is to make it clear that acts done under specific statutory powers—a situation which applies to most local authority activity—are subject to investigation even if there should be some charging element, such as the making of charges for accommodation in welfare homes. Schedule 5 does not declare all the matters subject to jurisdiction ; it simply states one or two of them where there might otherwise be some doubt.

Amendment No. 37, if accepted, would limit the area of investigation. There is no reason why transactions concerning building, construction and maintenance work should not be subject to investigation by local commissioners—and I make particular reference to the direct labour force—but there is exclusion if the building, construction work or maintenance work is predominantly of a commercial or contractual nature.

Mr. Allason: Is the Minister suggesting that the words in line 32 of the schedule
other than those required for the procurement of the goods and services necessary to discharge those functions
refer to transactions falling within "subsection (2) above" or relate to all transactions under any general public Act? If the latter, which is the way I read the provision, surely it excludes all procurement of goods or services—for example any activity by a direct labour force or anybody else.

Mr. Rossi: I understand that it relates to all functions connected with the procurement of goods or services.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Allason: Therefore, any investigation into a tender by a direct labour force would be utterly meaningless because it could always say, "The reason that the tender is so low is that we managed to get our materials dirt cheap. We are not subject to investigation on that. Therefore, you cannot look at the tender. AH that you are entitled to look at is the rate we pay our men and the overheads."

Mr. Rossi: The area of investigation by the local commissioners is one of maladministration pure and simple. If maladministration exists in the use of a direct labour force or the way that it is manipulated, no doubt that would be a matter for investigation by a commissioner. This part is intended to exclude all procurement functions because they are commercial or contractual.
We must understand that the moment commercial or contractual activities are entered into, a legal obligation arises which is enforceable in the court. That is a better forum for dealing with commercial or contractual transactions because the court deals with legal obligations between a citizen and the local authority concerned. We are not concerned here with contractual obligations subject to the jurisdiction of the court. We are concerned with matters of maladministration that normally cannot come before the court. Therefore, we are creating the local commissioners and giving them powers to deal with those situations.

Mr. Allason: I mentioned cases where there was perhaps a refusal to accept the lowest tender and a bias in favour of some particular supplier. That, again, is maladministration because it is unfair to the ratepayers. Yet my hon. Friend tells me that that would be excluded because it is a contractual matter.

Mr. Rossi: In the matter of acceptance of tenders local authorities have to take into account many considerations other than the price. One factor would be the commercial viability of a particular firm. It is easy for a mushroom firm to put in too low a price, for the local authority to pass the contract, and for it then to be left with half-finished work because the firm cannot complete it. Considerations relating to the standard of

workmanship must also be taken into account.
Most local authorities—certainly those with which I have had dealings in a previous existence before coming to the House—have an approved list of contractors who have been carefully investigated. Specifications are sent out to those firms and the tenders come in, normally sealed, and the lowest tender is accepted. But, of necessity, there must be some form of pre-selection if a local authority is to discharge its duty to its ratepayers to husband its resources carefully and prudently. This is not an area in which it would be right for too much intervention to take place.
Although I have not satisfied my hon. Friend on the objections that he has raised, I hope that I shall carry the House with me should he feel it necessary to press the matter further.

Mr. Allason: As my hon. Friend anticipates, I am not at all satisfied with his reply. I hope that he will look at the arguments that I have put forward and that in another place they will be seen to have the great validity that I may not have demonstrated as well as I might.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6

RELAXATION AND REMOVAL OF CONTROLS

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 53, leave out lines 5 to 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 56, in page 53, leave out lines 18 to 19.
No. 57, in Schedule 8, page 68, leave out line 27.
No. 58, in page 68, leave out line 37.

Mr. Blenkinsop: These amendments seek to do a simple thing. They merely ask for the retention of the Minister's reserve power in connection with certain matters affecting our countryside.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee, and after some argument I received


a promise from the Minister who then had responsibility, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), that he would consider the question in the hope that something might be done, but I agree that he gave no undertaking. The hon. Gentleman subsequently wrote to me to inform me that, alas, nothing was to be done.
Hopefully, I take the hon. Gentleman's departure from this immediate responsibility to mean that that decision has been rejected, and that the appearance of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), with his pleasant smile, as the Minister responsible means that he takes a different view of the situation, which I hope he does, because this is a simple and reasonable matter.
All that we are asking in these amendments, which are supported by open air organisations such as the Ramblers' Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Commission, is that a reserve power should be kept to the Minister so that, in the admittedly rather unlikely event of its being necessary, the local authority could be required to provide access to areas to enable people who are keen to do so—as I am and as I hope many others still are—to get into the open country. I am thinking especially of areas near our large towns where access is not easy. That is the purpose of one amendment.
The purpose of another of the amendments is to retain a ministerial reserve power more generally for matters affecting national parks and long-distance footpaths. It is said that the whole intention of sweeping away reserve powers is to give effective independence to local authorities. We welcome that general proposition, and we have said so on many occasions, but we must be selective in this because I am discussing matters of national and not purely local concern.
Local authorities can fairly complain that in some cases they are asked to bear a burden and responsibility for matters that are truly national. Largely, we are talking about national park areas, and the very word "national" should mean something. The danger is that it does not. What we are asking is that at least this modest reserve power should be retained by the Minister so that the

word "national" for our national parks means what most people believe it to mean, namely, that some kind of national concern is involved.
Ministers have said that the powers are not used. That is similar to the reserve powers in respect of many important matters, financial and other. The value lies in their existence, not in their being used. The value lies in the fact that everyone knows that, should a local authority take a wholly unreasonable stand, which we hope it will not, the powers are there, and this could in some cases affect the authority's judgment.
I was asked in Committee to give some evidence of the value of this provision. On the spur of the moment I offered some individual cases on the question of access. I suggested Barden Fell and Barden Moor in the West Riding of Yorkshire. I have had further evidence from both the Ramblers' Association and the CPRE to support the point of view that, although no order had to be made by the Government, nevertheless the question of the reserve power had been referred to in relevant discussions and, indeed, had had some effect on the final decision which enabled some effective access to be obtained in the Barden Fell and Barden Moor area. Something rather comparable has been brought to my attention concerning certain areas with which Lancashire County Council was concerned. Therefore, it seems that cases exist.
I understand that the Countryside Commission has also made representations on this subject and that it feels that the matter is all the more important because earlier requests for concurrent powers for the predecessor of the Countryside Commission, the National Parks Commission, of a similar character with regard to access and wider matters affecting national parks, had been rejected. If those requests were rejected, surely the Minister can look at this matter fairly again and grant what is, after all, a very modest request.
Many of us who are concerned about the enjoyment of our open spaces and about the proper use of our national parks and their conservation feel strongly that, as matters stand, the position is not satisfactory. They would very much welcome the retention of the reserve powers in these cases. I cannot


believe that local authorities and other bodies would resent such a proposal.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has presented his amendments so amiably that it is very difficult to resist them.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Then the hon. Gentleman should not resist them.

Mr. Rossi: However, the matter has been considered very carefully by my right hon. Friend during and since the Committee stage. The Countryside Commission expressed concern about the disappearance of a power which seemed to the commission to be of some value in encouraging local authorities to fulfil their countryside functions. But the commission has not been able to produce any concrete support for its view that would seem to justify the Government having second thoughts about the extent to which local government can be trusted to do its duty.
It is believed that the effect of the reorganisation of local government is to create larger authorities with greater resources, and more responsible authorities, and that we shall not experience any of the shortcomings of which the hon. Gentleman gave one or two small details. It is difficult for the Government to say that we are here reorganising local government, creating bodies with greater powers and resources and giving them more responsibility, and at the same time keeping reserve powers and controls over them in the manner suggested by the amendments.

Mr. Evelyn King: I take my hon. Friend's point that a larger authority might be more efficient. To that extent he may be right. But surely it is also true that the power of the individual against the larger authority will not be strengthened but will be weakened simply because that authority is larger. That is why the commissioner should have more power.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Rossi: I cannot accept that proposition. We must have regard to the fact that these powers have never been used. I would have thought that that was a prima facie argument for their removal. They are, in fact, a dead letter.
There has been no need to use them in the past. It seems pointless to keep them.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I keep saying that that is not the point. I have produced the evidence that the powers have been referred to and used in argument. That is their value. We hope that we shall never have to make final use of them in the sense of getting the Minister to make an order.

Mr. Rossi: The occasions on which that has arisen are few in number in the context of the questions which we are considering. In any event, we shall be dealing with a new type of authority. There are great hopes about the way in which the new authorities will discharge their functions.
I now turn to national parks. A new system of administration was introduced by the Local Government Act 1972. The Government consider that it will provide a better framework for the proper administration of the parks and that the retention of additional safeguards is unnecessary.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I shall not ask leave to reply in view of earlier comments from Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find the Government's reply utterly insensitive and lacking in any knowledge or understanding of the situation. I shall cease being cheerful and friendly and I shall be combative. It was a despicable and unimaginative answer.
There was an attempt to provide the Minister with valuable evidence. The Countryside Commission has made clear its concern. I made clear in Committee why the matter is becoming more and not less important. It is becoming more important in that certain safeguards such as referral to Ministers are now being taken away under the new local government reorganisation. Access is becoming more difficult because agriculture is changing in its nature. A great deal of land to which people used to have unquestioned access is no longer accessible to them for understandable reasons. That makes the matter one of concern to young people and people who feel themselves still young.
I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily. I suppose that we must hope that in another place their Lordships


may take a sane view of the situation and not the view of those who are completely lacking in any kind of understanding of what we are talking about.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 7

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 65, line 25, at end insert:
'7A. In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 113 of that Act (power to make rules prescribing certain matters and the form of certain documents) after the words "the form of" there shall be inserted the words "or the matters to be specified in"'.
The amendment deals with the form of the rate demand note. As the statute now stands the Secretary of State has to prescribe, among other things, the form of any rate demand note, valuation list statement, return or other document which is required or authorised to be used under or for the purpose of the Act—namely, the General Rate Act 1967.
On representations from local authority associations we think it right that we should not be so rigid as to prescribe the form. We think it sufficient if in any regulations we merely prescribe the matters to be specified in the form, thereby leaving much more flexibility to the local authorities to decide the form in which they set out these matters for the information of the ratepayers.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 65, line 40, at end insert:
'9A. In section 81 of the Local Government Act 1972 (exceptions to provisions about disqualification in section 80) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(3A) Section 80(1)(a) above shall not operate to disqualify any person for being elected or being the chairman, vice-chairman, deputy chairman or an alderman or councillor of the Greater London Council by reason of his being employed by the London Transport Executive or any subsidiary of theirs."'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 65, line 41, at beginning insert:

'10. At the end of section 195(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 there shall be added the words "save that the provision of temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen or in such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such circumstances shall include need arising from loss of accommodation as a result of fire, flood, or eviction, shall be the duty of the authority of the district, or an authority in Greater London where the person is at that time"'.
I, too, am sorry that I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I should have liked to have spoken at greater length than I can this evening on the problems of homelessness and allied problems, particularly as they arise in inner London and our larger cities. The amendment is supported by most organisations concerned with homelessness and by hon. Members on both sides.
The amendment seeks to restore the duty of a local authority to help the homeless and to give that responsibility to the housing authority. Under Section 21(1)(b) of the National Assistance Act 1948, every local authority has a duty to provide temporary accommodation for persons made homeless
in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen".
Schedule 23 of the Local Government Act 1972 weakens that duty in that a permissive power is substituted for the duty. The 1972 Act comes into effect on 1st April 1974 and will thereby permit local authorities to turn away many homeless people for whom they do not wish to provide temporary accommodation.
This change is tantamount to a return to the poor law in regard to provisions affecting the homeless. The National Assistance Act 1948 terminated the provisions under the poor law, but a drastic change of duties under the 1948 Act is tantamount to a return to poor law provisions.
Unfortunately time does not permit me to go into the many implications contained in the Government's proposals. There are two essential differences between the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Local Government Act 1972. First, as I have said, the mandatory part has been removed. This is coupled with the deletion of the scheme which was submitted in the 1948 Act. The change is


further complicated because we are in the process of shifting the responsibility for the homeless from the social services to the housing departments in local authorities. This transfer of responsibility is almost complete in the Greater London area. Already we have examples of people being turned away by housing departments for a whole number of reasons, including the inescapable fact that it is now known that there will not be a statutory duty on the departments.
Secondly, there is a possibility of interpreting the new law to mean that no first or second-stage accommodation could be provided either by revenue or capital moneys without the approval of the Minister.
I want to deal with the assurance of the Secretary of State for Social Services when, in reply to a Question on 20th December, he said
I propose to give a direction to local authorities to continue after 1st April 1974 their duty under Section 21(1)(b) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide temporary accommodation in certain circumstances for homeless people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1973 ; Vol. 866, c. 373.]
I wish to take up two points on that assurance and to ask the Minister to reply. First, I fail to understand why it is necessary to remove the statutory duty, and to substitute a directive to local authorities to restore the duty. I should have thought that in that case the duty could have been left in the statute. That puzzled me when I read the Minister's assurance. Secondly, it seems to me that there is certainly a need for further clarification of the phrase "in certain circumstances".
I should like the Minister to broaden the definition which many people gave to the phrase "in certain circumstances", because at the moment it is accepted almost as simply to mean fire, flood and national emergency, which is far from the interpretation which most local authorities have placed on the duties hitherto. I do not believe that even with that assurance these provisions will place any real statutory duties on housing authorities which are assuming general responsibilities for the homeless.
Once again it is the most vulnerable sections of our community who are under attack or who stand to be at further risk because of the new provisions under the

Bill. It is the one-parent families and those who are being evicted daily from furnished accommodation in our big cities—certainly in London—and the people who have never had any need to register on housing authority waiting lists, who have not established enough points to qualify for rehousing, who are at the most risk. They are the ones who face these problems if the statutory duty is removed from local authorities.
I could give scores of examples if time permitted. I shall mention only two cases to illustrate the kind of people who are definitely at risk if this change is accepted. First, I shall cite the case of a mother and her four-year-old son living in furnished accommodation. The landlord was evicting her because he wanted to redevelop the property—a common occurrence in London. The mother had lived in the house for two years but had not been allowed to register on the housing waiting list because she was considered to be adequately housed and because she was an unmarried mother. Some authorities do not accept registrations from unmarried mothers.
When the mother contacted the social services department, having received a court order, she was told that she was not on a housing list and could not be considered. The authority refused to take any action, even when she had a bailiff's note for the eviction. She was forced to contact her local voluntary organisation, in this instance Shelter, which happily took up her case. By using the provisions of the 1948 Act it was able to get the woman and her child rehoused. That is one of many cases which we could quote in aid of the need to retain statutory functions.
My worries can be summed up in two brief sentences. It will apparently be left to the discretion of local authorities to provide this service instead of its being a statutory duty, whereas I and many of my hon. Friends feel that it should be a compelling responsibility. Second, the Minister might have the power of veto of any scheme for the homeless which a local authority might itself firmly approve.
The amendment is the best way of protecting the rights of the homeless which have been established over a long and difficult period, especially as we enter what will probably be an even more difficult period.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Allason: When I was approached in regard to the fears expressed about the withdrawal of the statutory duty of local authorities to provide temporary accommodation, I thought that it would be worth finding out what the Government had to say. In consequence, I put down the Question the start of the answer to which the hon. Member for St. Paneras, North (Mr. Stallard) quoted but did not complete. It is only fair to give the rest of that reply. I had better read it in full, because the hon. Member put his own gloss on the early part of the answer.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
I propose to give a direction to local authorities to continue after 1st April 1974 their duty under Section 21(1)(b) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide temporary accommodation in certain circumstances for homeless people. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friends, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Wales, and I intend to issue to local authorities a circular setting out the Government's view that accommodating homeless people should increasingly be seen as a housing responsibility. The policy of the Government is to seek to improve the general provision for the homeless without altering the particular responsibilities placed on local authoties by the National Assistance Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1973 ; Vol. 866, c. 373–4.]
I therefore suggest that the fears are not as well-founded as they have been argued. I am sorry that the hon. Member used the emotive phrase, "a return to the poor law", in the light of his knowledge of that answer.
The complaints must amount to the fact that it is now to be a direction to local authorities, as opposed to a statutory duty, and that it can be claimed that a direction is not as effective as a statutory duty ; and, second, that the circular which is to go out may not cover a sufficient number of cases.
On the first point, it is difficult to qualify a statutory duty but rather more easy to qualify a direction. Clearly, an absolute obligation on local authorities to house all the homeless whatever their circumstances is not possible. The whole of Scotland could decide to move to London and could arrive on the night train demanding accommodation. That is an extreme example, but we feel this problem particularly in Hertfordshire. It is a desirable place in which to live and has the highest rate of employment in

Britain. Consequently, many people like to go there and are a little hurt when they find that housing is difficult to obtain. So a direction to house the homeless can be qualified.
I am not trying to be unsympathetic. Probably the ordinary ratepayer is pretty unsympathetic about this problem because he does not appreciate what goes on. Members of Parliament see these heartbreaking cases in their constituencies and are desparately worried about what has to be done. Clearly an absolute responsibility is not possible. The National Assistance Act says that local authorities should provide
temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising from circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen or in such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine.
The
circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen
will mean that a great many people are left out. There are many people we wish to help. No one could possibly foresee their circumstances but still we wish to help them. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North mentioned the single-parent families who are in particular difficulties. He also mentioned the people who have not been in an area long enough to get on the housing list. Here there should be two separate lists—a list of those who must complete a waiting time before being entitled to be considered for ordinary council accommodation and, secondly, an emergency list which will be precisely for the category we are concerned with.
Placing the responsibility on the housing authority may mean that a greater pool of houses will be available, but it will still be a matter of choosing categories. There will be direct competition between those who are homeless perhaps because of a family dispute and those who have been waiting patiently with their in-laws in overcrowded circumstances until it is their turn to be rehoused.
It seems to me much fairer that there should be a direct comparison rather than that someone should falsely claim to have been put on the street and thus be able to get satisfactory accommodation. There are immense difficulties, and the right system is therefore to have direction rather


than statute. A satisfactory circular should define the duties to be laid on a local authority.

Mr. Oakes: During today's debates we have been talking about money, rates, property and hereditaments. This is probably the last opposed amendment. It concerns people and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) for having brought it to the House. We are concerned with the question of duty and power. Before 1972 the local authorities had a duty to provide for the homeless. The 1972 Act gave them the power to provide for the homeless and that is one of the curses of 1974.
Yesterday I was criticised by Tory Members when I defended the peaceful occupation, for 48 hours, of Centre Point, which stands in an area of homeless people. I do not apologise for one word of what I said yesterday. I can understand the provocation that that building must give to people without a home. The amendment seeks to restore to local authorities the statutory duty to provide for the homeless.
This is a divided duty in many areas—divided between social services and housing. As we said in Committee on the Local Government Bill in 1972, that division made it worse in the metropolitan counties because social services are a county responsibility and housing is a district function. The homeless are being passed from county to district and back again, and between the various Ministries. My hon. Friend wants this statutory duty to apply in certain circumstances. He is speaking of instances of fire, flood, or eviction. He is not saying that people can wander around the country and depend upon authorities and be rehoused. That is not the purpose, nor is it the wording of the amendment. My hon. Friend is saying that there should be a duty on a housing authority to provide for the homeless in its area.
From this Opposition Front Bench I warmly applaud the amendment. It has the support of Conservative as well as Labour Members, and, I hope, the Liberal Party as well. It has support from Shelter, the Catholic Housing Association, and all those people who are concerned with the plight of the homeless

in our midst at present. In view of the support from outside organisations, in view of the support from both sides of the House and from all three parties in the House, I ask the Minister—I urge the Minister—to make this a statutory duty on housing authorities and not to deal with it merely by direction.
Hon. Members on the Government side often talk about the rule of law. Let this provision be law, a law of the land, a law which says that it is the duty of the housing authority, by statute, to make provision for the homeless in its area.

Mr. Thomas Cox: In view of the very forceful comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), I shall be very brief. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), I readily acknowledge, has very wide knowledge of housing matters, but in housing matters he is possibly not under the same pressure as hon. Members representing large cities, and certainly London.
Why are we saying that there must be a very clear instruction given to local authorities? As we are all aware, we often consider housing problems and problems which local authorities neglect even under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, an Act warmly supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and yet repeatedly hon. Members on both sides comment on the lack of constructive action by local authorities under that Act. That is why we are saying that there must be some very clear, some very precise, instruction given to the local authorities throughout the country. It is not sufficient for a direction to be given by the Minister.
Homelessness, unfortunately, is increasing in every one of our large cities. Only a few days ago I received a letter dated 18th January from a woman in my constituency, and I will quote a little of it. She writes:
Sorry to trouble you, but I really am in a desperate situation. I have been living in Gassiot Road for many years. Unfortunately my landlady died last year. I am in my eighties. I am really at the end of my tether. The next step they are taking against me is a bailiff's eviction order.
My local authority and, I am sure, many others are aware of these problems and will act to safeguard people, but


unfortunately there are many other authorities which do not. That is the point which my hon. Friend is making in his amendment.
We do not want people, uprooted from other parts of the country, drifting into London and becoming the responsibility of London local authorities. Invariably they will come into areas which already have crucial housing problems. In 1972 in London there were 5,143 applications for temporary accommodation. Last year the figure increased to 6,859. No doubt many of the people came from other parts of the country into London. What we are saying is that the homeless must be the responsibility of the authorities in whose areas they live.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead made a point about people on housing lists. I have in my constituency people who have lived in supposed furnished accommodation—we all know the "racket" in furnished accommodation—for 15 to 20 years. They have never gone on to a council list because they were decent tenants who always paid their rent. For some reason the house was sold and bought by another man——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hall-Davis.]

Question again proposed. That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Cox: They have no security and they have never been on a housing list. They become homeless. This is the problem which adds to those already existing in our city areas. This is why we believe local authorities must be made to face up to their responsibilities rather than place added burdens upon areas already facing appalling housing problems.

Mr. Rossi: This has been a serious debate on a desperately serious subject, which is perhaps the most serious social problem we have, certainly in our large cities. That much is evidenced by the fact that hon. Members on all sides of the House support the amendment and by the fact that there have been representations from Shelter and the Catholic Housing Aid Association.
At the outset I emphasise that it is the Government's will and intention to do whatever they can to help the homeless. Their intention is to seek to do precisely that in the Bill. The way in which services in the local authorities are proposed to be organised will make it easier for them to cope with the problem of the homeless. Labour Members have made great play of the fact that the legislation appears to take away a duty from local authorities and replace it simply with a power. The suggestion is that local authorities, having merely a power, will not carry out their responsibilities to the homeless. I remind hon. Gentlemen that Section 195 of the Local Government Act gives the Secretary of State a power to make a direction to local authorities.
I wish to refer to Section 21(1)(b) of the National Insurance Act 1948 upon which hon. Members place great reliance. That is the section which is being amended. It imposes a duty on local authorities to provide for the homeless in certain circumstances. The relevant wording is that there shall be a duty to provide:
temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen or in such other circumstances as the authority may … determine.
That is the provision which hon. Members say should not be amended because of the duty it imposes.
However, that section is not as watertight in its imposition of a duty as hon. Members appear to imagine, because it contains a safeguard for local authorities by using the words:
in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen.
hat gives an escape to local authorities if they wish to use it. They can refuse to rehouse homeless people by saying that those people could have foreseen the circumstances which rendered them homeless. The local authorities are the sole arbiters. Therefore, the duty is not such an absolute duty as Opposition Members appear to think.
That defect is carried forward in the amendment, which includes the words
in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen".
It goes further, giving a far wider discretion in the phrase
or in such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine".


That is not the imposition of an absolute duty. Under the amendment, the local authority is the sole arbiter of the circumstances in which it shall rehouse the homeless.
The amendment goes on to give specific instances in which there shall be a duty—fire, flood or eviction. But there could be other circumstances in which people were rendered homeless. The amendment would not be sufficient to meet them.
The other defect of the amendment is that it refers to districts. Under the reorganisation, districts will not have social services functions outside the metropolitan areas.

Mr. Marks: Does not Section 34 of the National Assistance Act 1948 give the Minister powers to devise a scheme if local authorities do not submit a satisfactory scheme? Does not the power about which the hon. Gentleman is talking exist in the Act?

Mr. Rossi: The Minister has power to propose a scheme. In the Local Government Act 1972, which will take effect from 1st April this year, the Secretary of State is given the power to give directions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services intends to make a direction and it is hoped that, printing allowing, it will be available at the beginning of next month at the latest.
In that direction, a general approval will be given for local authorities to make arrangements under the section to provide accommodation. At the same time, my right hon. Friend will direct all local authorities that arrangements shall be made, first, to provide accommodation for those in need of care and attention ; secondly, to provide accommodation for those in urgent need ; and thirdly, to provide accommodation for the welfare, medical care, hygiene and amenities of those accommodated. Lastly, it will provide for review and improvement of the arrangements.
The virtue of a direction as against a general duty imposed by statute, as it is under the 1948 Act, is that direct control can be exercised by the Secretary of State over the discharge of the obligation imposed by his own specific direction, in a way that is not possible by the imposition of a general statutory duty.
A direction can also be directed against a specific authority. It can identify a

particular area of need. It is not limited to categories, as the amendment suggests. The Secretary of State can direct for any need which causes homelessness as and when it may arise. It is unnecessary to bring forward legislation before that power can be given. It can identify for monitoring by the Secretary of State all the steps that are taken by the local authorities for follow up by him in a way that cannot be done when a simple general power is imposed by legislation.
The Government are giving themselves a more effective and sharper weapon to deal with homelessness. The weapon given to the Secretary of State of being able to direct particular authorities as to particular areas of need is a formidable and flexible one. It has a flexibility that is not contained in a general blanket statutory power or duty.
I ask hon. Gentlemen to reflect on this proposed new machinery. I assure them that the Government intend to tackle the problem in the best way available to them. We are talking about the means by which this can be done.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: The direction seems not to include an obligation on local authorities to make provision for persons who are the subject of eviction. I should like to have an assurance that the direction will place such an obligation on local authorities.

Mr. Rossi: The direction will speak of those in urgent need, and those words are sufficiently wide to cover evictions.
I emphasise that it is the intention of the direction to reimpose the existing duty under the National Assistance Act and to extend and make the powers more effective. I can give no stronger assurance than that of the Government's intention and of the concern with which the Government regard this appalling problem.
I see the way in which misgivings have arisen both in the House and outside. When one is dealing with technical, legal matters of this kind and referring backwards and forwards between statutes, there may be a suspicion that someone is trying to get out from under, and misunderstandings may arise. There is no need for any misunderstandings because the intention is to provide ourselves with a more effective tool for coping with the problem of homelessness.


As well as the direction I have mentioned, it is intended within the next two to three weeks to issue a circular to local authorities. This will bring out many of the points I have been making and will emphasise that the housing authorities will increasingly undertake prime responsibility for the homeless and their accommodation. The circular will give advice to local authorities on the best way to meet the problems of home-lessness. It will draw together the best local authority practices and embody many of the recommendations of studies and working party reports. I hope that in the time available to me I have been able to relieve the anxieties that have been expressed.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: With the leave of the House, I should like to take a few moments to answer some of the arguments advanced by the Minister.

Division No. 38.]
AYES
[10.17 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley Brian


Austick, David
Hooson, Emlyn
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Booth, Albert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Concannon, J. D.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Cronin, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steel, David


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Oeakins, Eric
MacDonald, Mrs. Margo
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stott, Roger


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Dormand, J. D,
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)
Tope, Graham


Evans, Fred
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Faulds, Andrew
Marsden, F.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wallace, George


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham. Ladywood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David



Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitlock, William


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C (S'hampton, lichen)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hardy, Peler
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Krncst G. Perry.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Humphrey
Biffen, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Benyon, W.
Boscawen, Hn. Robert


Astor, John
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive

The Minister said that he intended to issue a direction. I ask him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services why—remembering that the Local Government Act was passed in 1972—a direction has still not been issued even though the new authorities will take over on 1st April. It is a little late to say that that direction will be introduced in the next few weeks.

My second point is that the difference between a statute and a direction is that of course a statute is part of the law of the land. It is open to any individual or housing association to take an authority to court if it refuses to carry out its statutory duties. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Paneras, North (Mr. Stallard) will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put. That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 131.

Bowden, Andrew
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bray, Ronald
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter

Rost. Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Sainsbury, Timothy


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Arthur, (Northants, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cormack, Patrick
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Dixon, Piers
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Speed, Keith


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fidler, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John
Sutcliffe, John


Foster, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trew, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Green, Alan
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Molyneaux, James
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gurden Harold
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard



Morrison, Charles
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Haselhurst Alan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil



Hicks, Robert
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Holland, Philip
Pounder, Ration
Mr. Adam Butler.


Holt, Miss Mary
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 65, line 41, leave out 'the Local Government

Schedule 8

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 68, line 14, at end insert:


'26 Geo. 5 &amp; 1 Edw. 8 c. 49.
The Public Health Act 1936.
Section 292'.


No. 44, in page 68, line 23, at end insert:


'12,13 &amp; 14 Geo. 6.c. 55.
The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.
In section 7(2) the words "two hundred and ninety-two" and the words "for the inclusion of sums in respect of establishment charges in expenses recoverable under that Act" '


No. 45, in page 69, line 8, column 3, at end insert:




' In section 174(2)(b) the words from "which may include" to "and notices"'.


No. 46, in page 71, line 45, at end insert:


1969 c. 33.
The Housing Act 1969.
Section 74'.


No. 47, in page 71, line 46, at end insert:


1969 c. 10.
The Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969.
In section 23(1), paragraph (c) except the final word "and"'.


No. 48, in page 72, line 42, column 3, at end insert:




'In section 91(4), paragraph (c) except the final word "and"'.

Act 1972' and insert 'the Act'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

No. 49, in page 73, line 21, column 3, at end insert:



'In section 212(1) the words "for the purposes of advances under section 235 of the Highways Act 1959"'.


No. 50, in page 73, line 47, column 3, at end insert:



11(9) the words from "multiplied by" to "authority for that year", in paragraph

No. 51, in page 73, line 49, column 3, at end insert 'and paragraph 13(2)'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 52, in line 3. after "borrowing', insert 'and lending'

No. 53, in line 16, after 'amendments' insert 'of or'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I express at once my gratitude to both sides of the House and the Committee for the constructive debates that we have had. I think that we have achieved some reasonable amendments to the Bill and that we can send it to another place as something very worthy of its consideration and, I hope, rapid passage through the other place.
The Bill carries out some substantial reforms. It does so, first, in the calculation and distribution of the rate support grant by giving powers to the Secretary of State to be more flexible in the formula for the distribution and calculation. The powers given by the Bill will enable the Government to ensure much more certainly and specifically than has ever before been possible the share out of the grant according to the needs of the local authorities.
The Bill introduces the new transport supplementary grant, the new national parks grant and the grant to the Countryside Commission. There have been arguments that we ought to have abandoned rates, that we ought to have found other revenue for local authorities, but, given the rate system, I believe that by means of the Bill we shall make it work fairly in the coming year, and that had we not had the Bill, had we relied upon the powers in the 1966 Act, there could not have been a fair distribution of the rate support grant this year, nor could we have treated individual ratepayers fairly.
In Part II we have instituted the most substantial rate rebate scheme ever. This is not just an amendment of an existing rate rebate scheme but something massively new by means of which 3 million more people will be entitled to rate rebate up to substantial income limits. That means that about 4 million people ought to be receiving rate rebates.
That same part of the Bill increases the statutory deductions and makes reforms in the rating system as the system applies to

improvements, plant and machinery, public utilities, disabled persons and so on.
We then introduced flexibility into the ordinary rating of empty property, the rating of empty property as we have known it already under statute, which was too rigid. The Bill makes it more flexible. In the course of the Report stage the House has introduced a surcharge for the keeping of commercial premises deliberately unoccupied. That is, again, a very new proposition, but one which will be a very serious deterrent to the lack of use of commercial properties.
In addition to the financial reforms brought about by the Bill, there is the very important Part III dealing with the local government ombudsman. This will undoubtedly be of very great interest to the public. I am sure every hon. Member will agree that nine-tenths of the constituents who come to see him when he holds a surgery or clinic, whatever one calls it, come about matters of local government, complaining about the administration perhaps of the local authorities. It will be of interest to the public that there will be an independent commissioner to look into that sort of complaint.
Finally, in Part IV we have tried to remove some of the outdated and outmoded controls exercised by central Government over local government and continued the process which we started in the Local Government Act 1972 to relax central Government controls on local government and to give local authorities a greater discretion.
Again I express my gratitude to all those who have taken part in the debates on the Bill and to all those who have advocated amendments to the Bill which were not drafted by parliamentary counsel. I know that it is always difficult when one has ideas of how to improve a Bill to put them into language which will be acceptable ; but through amendments of that sort appearing on the Order Paper we have been able to debate and discuss them and to introduce improvements to the Bill.
I commend the Bill to the House.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: It would be churlish of me if I did not at the outset add a personal note to say how much the


Opposition appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has done, not only on this Bill but on many others. The right hon. Gentleman does not give way easily. He is prepared to consider an amendment from whatever part of the House or Committee it comes and to consider it on its merits. On many occasions he has been man enough to say that the other side or those who moved amendments were right and that his original advice was wrong. Time and again during the passage of this Bill he has in that way accommodated the House. I often wonder whether the Leader of the House realises how much easier his job is made by a reasonable and responsible Minister who cares for local government in the way that the right hon. Gentleman cares. I pay that tribute to him.
The timetabling of the Bill has been rather surprising. It must appear so to the right hon. Gentleman too. Local government has been desperately awaiting, and still desperately awaits, the final outcome of the Bill. New local authorities will be in existence on 1st April 1974, a matter of weeks from now. The Government brought the Bill before the House two years late. First, it ought to have accompanied the Local Government Act 1972. It was then promised for the following year, but it did not come. It came this Session.
With the Bill coming as late as it did, in November, because of the concern and anxiety felt by treasurers of local authorities throughout the country, in Committee we were perhaps—the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, I hope—much more lenient with the Bill and with the Government than we might otherwise have been. I think the Minister will agree that we ensured that the Bill had a speedier passage than many Bills of equal complexity and size. We did so to assist the Government to accommodate local government
We gave the Government the Bill as early as 12th November because we understood that local government was desperate to have the Bill and so that it should go through all its stages here before Christmas so that it could go through the other place early in January. To our astonishment, it did not come up for its final stages in this House during the last weeks of December. It

did not even come up at the beginning of this year. The result is that it goes to another place for Second Reading on 31st January. Its Committee stage in another place will be on about 10th February. It must inevitably be towards the end of February before it reaches its final stages in another place. There may well be amendments coming back to this place.
We may well be into March before the operative Act dealing with local government functions becomes the law of the land, yet the new authorities will be in existence on 1st April. I commend entirely the spirit, good nature and concern which the Minister has expressed, but on behalf of local government we can only deplore the attitude of the Leader of the House and, through him, the Government generally on the way in which they have dealt with this vitally important Bill for the future of local government.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we have made many improvements to the Bill. I agree. We have done so because it will be a Bill that local government will abide by for a number of years. It is a major Bill. I cannot but regret that in many respects it is such a tame measure. The right hon. Gentleman says, with understandable pride, that many millions of pounds will be put forward by the Government to assist individual domestic ratepayers and that that sum will increase year by year whichever Government are in office. We cannot help but wonder whether the system is right when we must pay so much money to uphold a system which is so defective that it needs such a large amount of money to avoid individual ratepayers facing a burden which they could not possibly bear.
Many Government supporters must feel that we have merely tinkered with the system and that we have not basically amended it. The Opposition have tried to put forward amendments, particularly in the form of new clauses, that might have given local authorities greater powers to bring money from their own resources such as land and trading. Those amendments were defeated. I hope that the other place will not look at such aspects of local government from a party political point of view because of the desperate need of local government to


have sources of finance other than Government grant and rates. The need is imperative.
Let us face facts. We have not basically tackled that need. Of course there have been improvements. A dramatic improvement occurred in Committee. I pay tribute to Conservative Members who moved amendments in Committee which would have provided unlimited penal clauses for the obscenity of leaving commercial developments empty. The Government introduced a new clause of which I was critical yesterday. I think that the House and the other place will be critical of both its wording and effect because it will not do the job that we hoped it would do.
During the course of the Bill the Government's mind was changed dramatically either by the course of events outside the House or by the pressure of some Conservative Members and Labour Members who decided that something must be done to remedy the evil of commercial developments being left empty.
Many things still need to be done about the rating system. We are giving a Third Reading to an important Bill. We have improved and amended the original Government proposals, with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers.
Although the provisions relating to the ombudsman should have been in a separate Bill, nevertheless the Opposition welcome these provisions. We all know of the many grievances which are raised with hon. Members at their surgeries and which do not require to be taken up with Government Departments but are cases where citizens feel aggrieved at what the local authority has or has not done. The ombudsman will help such people.
I hope that the commisisoner's terms of reference will be such as to enable more use to be made of him than seems to have been made of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Here I do not criticise the Parliamentary Commissioner. I criticise the terms of reference. Many hon. Members tend to send cases to him which must be rejected because of his terms of reference. I hope that many more cases will be able to be dealt with by the local government commissioner, which will give the aggrieved citizen some sense of his

grievance being assuaged or of the local authority paying the penalty publicly and to the individual concerned for the wrong done him.
The other place, too, has a vital rôle to play on the Bill in considering amendments, particularly amendments like those propounded by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) relating to planning. We in this House, because of great pressure of time, did not have time to consider those amendments as adequately as we would have liked.
We shall not oppose the Third Reading. I hope that the other place is speedy in its deliberations, not to assist the Government but to assist local government which so desperately needs a firm conclusion as to where the money is to come from. It needs this conclusion in a matter of days rather than of months.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: A debate on Third Reading is usually an occasion for honeyed words and brevity. I shall try to follow the tradition in both respects.
I did not have the honour and pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee. I am grateful to those who did. I shall confine my remarks to that part of the Bill in which I am most interested, namely Part III. I am bound to be at least a little interested, because I tried to introduce a Private Member's Bill along these lines.
Part III will make the biggest appeal to the public at large. Whatever we may think of local authorities—in Dorset we have local authorities which are as efficient as any—there is no denying the fact, as every hon. Member knows, that the majority of complaints made to hon. Members relate to local authorities. It is entirely reasonable that there should be proper machinery for investigation of any form of maladministration.
It is upon the question of maladministration that I want to offer the only criticism that I shall offer. It might be supposed that any form of maladministration which is alleged should be investigated and that there should be no restriction. That would seem to be the logic. The obvious exception to that, and it is one that the Bill makes, is that that shall not be done where that is already a similar duty laid upon another


body—a tribunal or a court. But that presupposes that that other body is itself efficient.

Clause 25(6) says:
A Local Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation under this Part of this Act in respect of any of the following matters, that is to say …

(b) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a right of appeal to a Minister of the Crown."

The type of case I have in mind is the planning appeal: the local commissioner will have no right to interfere in that type of matter.

That is reasonable if the Minister does what he should. But we should note that the hearing of an appeal under the aegis of the Department now takes on average about 62 weeks. It is reasonable to assume that some six months has passed before one gets to the point of appealing, so a person who wishes to appeal against a planning decision will not on average get his answer for about two years. There comes a point when justice delayed is justice denied, and we are near to reaching that point.

May I take the common case of a person who buys a house in London for, say, £30,000—not an exaggerated sum in London. If he is kept waiting two years with that amount of money at risk because he cannot agree with the planning authorities about how the house should be converted or altered, for the whole of that time he is paying in interest about £100 a week. I am talking not about the big developer but about the ordinary individual buying himself a house. This is a penal state of affairs. It can be and is a cruel thing. It has the added drawback of keeping houses in London empty for months on end. The number of houses empty in London not for the familiar reasons but because their owners are awaiting planning decisions must be very large.

There is injustice here. If the local commissioner is not to convict anyone of maladministration in this matter, even though justice is delayed two years, a double obligation falls upon my right hon. Friends to see that the job cast upon them is being efficiently done. No one who knows the facts can deny that at the moment it is not being efficiently done. I know that we now have the

Dobry Report and I hope that action will be taken upon it.

This is not a major subject of the Bill but it is part of the subject of the Bill, because the local commissioner will not be able to express any view on planning matters. So much the greater, therefore, is the Minister's duty.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I will try to observe the self-denying ordinance that is traditional on Third Readings, especially at this late hour. On Second Reading on 12th November I sought to draw the attention of the House to what I regarded as basic weaknesses and deficiencies in the Bill. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) that it has been improved in Committee, but those improvements dealt with specific matters which did not affect the main theme of my criticism.
I regret to tell the House that the fears I expressed on that occasion are still unallayed. Indeed, they have deepened as a consequence of what has happened over the last few weeks.
The aim of the Bill is wrong and evil in so far as it seeks to siphon resources away from rural areas which are greatly in need of central Government assistance to the towns and cities. I agree that the demands of the urban areas are great but these should not be met at the expense of the countryside. Wales will suffer considerably because of this proposal and it is no secret that seven out of the eight new county councils in Wales bemoan the fact that the Government have opted for the formula which will eventually be prescribed by them as the basis for rate support grant.
In these circumstances we are astounded that we shall not be privileged with the presence on this most important occasion of the Secretary of State for Wales or his junior Minister. I understand that he has absented himself throughout the whole of this debate. I am not surprised that no Welsh Tory Members are present either. They have as little interest in Wales as Wales has in the Tory Party. The damage that the provision to which I have referred will do to Wales is incalculable. On Second Reading it was estimated that the net loss to the new Welsh authorities by


way of rate support grant would be of the order of £10 million, but that may be a serious underestimate. We may now have to think in terms of a sum in excess of £15 million.
The consequence of such a shortfall for Wales is all too clear. Either there will be a substantial lowering of standards of basic local government services, which in many cases are already at a low level, or there will be a wholly intolerable raising of the general rate. In such a situation the provisions for a contribution towards the domestic rate element can only stave off the evil hour. This will only ameliorate the situation in the short term, cushion the worst effect of the blow for a limited period and do nothing for non-domestic property. In a constituency like mine, with the lowest level of industrial development in the country, the difficulty of attracting industry is already a frustration. Such a situation will be made infinitely worse because of the Bill.
This case has been put to the Secretary of State for Wales, the trustee of the Principality in the Cabinet, by my right hon. and hon. Friends on numerous occasions. This is not the first time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed miserably to protect the interests of our land and nation in Government but this is his greatest failure and we can well understand why he does not have the face to attend the debate tonight.
It is one thing to bring about the ruination of Welsh local government—I do not think I am exaggerating my case—but it is even worse to refuse to let the Welsh people be given the basic facts of the miserable situation. Over the nine weeks that have elapsed since Second Reading we have demanded of the Secretary of State the basic fundamental facts about the situation. We have been denied them by his Trappist silence. I now ask the Minister to tell us, first, by how many millions of pounds the total of rate support grant in respect of the services for which local government will be responsible will show a shortfall from the figure for the current year.
Is it not a fact that seven out of eight of the new Welsh county councils will be far worse off in consequence of these provisions? Can the Minister tell us what the average rise in rates will have

to be merely to maintain the same level of services? Will he confirm that in the Dyfed County Council area the rise in rates must be of the order of 35 per cent. or upwards and that in the case of Powys it will be of the order of 80 per cent. or upwards? The Welsh people are being ruined by this provision. They are entitled to know the details of their fate.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I hope that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) will forgive me if I do not follow up his criticisms, made from his Welsh seat. I should say, and I hope it will be taken sincerely, that the Minister of State, Welsh Office was present during the Committee proceedings and I think I am right in saying that, although the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) made important contributions to our proceedings, there was no official Welsh spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench. I think the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair in his strictures.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: May I correct the hon. Member on one point? I was serving on another Committee which met at the same time. It has been the contention of my hon. Friends all along that there should have been two separate Bills, one for England and one for Wales.

Mr. Chapman: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I was meaning no discourtesy to him and was not suggesting that he should have been on the Opposition Front Bench. In view of the importance he attaches to the Bill as it affects the Principality, I would have thought that there might have been an official Welsh spokesman for the Opposition. No personal reflection was intended.
I respond warmly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and say that there is at least one Government back bencher who utterly agrees with the personal remarks he made about my right hon. Friend the Minister. He has been most helpful to us at all stages, particularly in supplying us with briefs in Committee.
I cannot accept that the rating system, certainly in so far as it affects the domestic element, is anything other than


illogical, unfair and out of date. It is illogical because people do not necessarily pay according to the services they use, it is unfair because people do not pay directly according to their means and it is out of date because in any case 60 per cent. of the total of local authority revenue comes from the central Exchequer.
While the point made by my right hon. Friend about the rate rebate system being extended to help a further 3 million people is to be welcomed, it also underlines the increasing absurdity of the present system. As a person who has criticised the rating system, may I say that it is important for those within the Chamber and outside, who condemn the present system with all its anomalies and deficiencies, to endeavour in the coming months to put forward a viable alternative. I have tried to do so, but since the Bill is being passed and will shortly be on the statute book our minds should be concentrated on finding a practical, if radical, alternative, to the present system.
Recognising that the present system will be with us, I welcome the measures in the Bill, particularly its more sophisticated method of assessing the rate support grant for different local authorities. I particularly welcome the extra help which the new measures will give, especially to the large conurbations.
I welcome the modest changes which have been made in the rating system, especially with Clause 20, about valuation lists not being affected, although my right hon. Friend will note that I put down amendments to further strengthen and amend it.
I also welcome the point to which the hon. Member for Widnes referred in new Clause 14 to deal with the rating of unoccupied offices and other commercial premises. I, of course, welcome the setting up of the commissions for local administration to deal with an albeit limited category of complaints concerning alleged maladministration.
The fact remains that 9 million wage earners who in the normal course of events can and should afford to contribute directly to domestic rates and revenue therefrom do not do so. That is an utter condemnation of the present system. This has caused bitterness widely among millions of people who feel, rightly or

wrongly, that they are being asked to pay amounts which other people, far better off, do not have to pay directly themselves.
Until we can remove that bitterness, which can come about only with a radically new system of raising finance, while I give the Bill my support, as a temporary measure, I shall not refrain from urging more radical measures from the present and future administrations.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. David Austick: I would follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) in his suggestion of radical changes in the way we raise money for local government.
Although I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee, I respect those who served on it for the task they have performed. They started with rather a poor Bill, as I said on Second Reading, and they have perhaps improved it a little. It was not an easy task to improve such a poor Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to my comments on Second Reading and for his having personally agreed in Committee to take out what I suggested was a most offensive clause.
This is a very tame Bill. In some ways it is only a shell. In Part I there are 40 occasions when a direction is left to the Minister. This is a strange situation for people in local government who will have to operate the Bill, which has taken such a long time to be brought even to this point, and hon. Members must sympathise greatly with local government officers who are to receive it at some future time and attempt to put it into operation. If they fail, it will be our fault. The Government have taken too long over the Bill and have not considered the working of local government and the time available to it to put the provisions into operation.
An onerous responsibility is put upon the local rating authorities, particularly in the penal system of levying rates on empty properties. To leave the decision to the local authority officers is unfair.
Many of the amendments that were put down on Report would not have been tabled if we had had a different system of raising finance. If the system of raising money on the value of the site


rather than the value of the building had been introduced, we need not have spent so long considering the Bill.
I want to emphasise the problems of the sparsely populated areas. We heard an eloquent speech from a Welsh Member, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), but there are also sparsely populated areas in parts of England. We shall suffer particularly in the rural areas of the North of England and Wales. I was disappointed that yesterday the Minister mentioned in one of his replies only the amounts of additional revenue which were to be given to the metropolitan counties. I should like him to tell us what sums will be taken away from the non-metropolitan counties. It is no good putting just one side of the story. The right hon. Gentleman should put the other side so that we know where we stand.
We on the Liberal bench hope that the Bill has a swift passage through the other place and that certain amendments will be made there which this House has been unable to accept. We hope to have an opportunity to improve the Bill still further.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Austick) has voiced the misgivings that, almost without exception, we share about the reorganisation of local government finance. The Royal Commission on the reorganisation of local government got off on the wrong foot, because its terms of reference did not require it to look into the reform of local government finance. Perhaps it was unavoidable that that reform could not take place coincidental with the reform of local government, because no responsibility to look at the financial effects of local government reorganisation was placed upon the Royal Commission.
The House has also faced the reorganisation of the National Health Service and the whole of the water cycle. It has been a deluge—for want of a better word—for the Government, and not entirely of their own making. The Government were conditioned by what went before, particularly by the Royal Commission and the duties imposed upon it. The House was faced with making the best

of the difficult circumstances created by the reform of local government, which inescapably was a root-and-branch reform.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development. From what he said in the House and in Committee I feel sure that he would have preferred to see some significant alterations in local government finance. I know that he has addressed himself most effectively to bringing about the best possible settlement in the difficult circumstances which the Government faced. I pay tribute also to the Department, which had no comparables on which to base the guidance it gave to the Government.
There has been a tremendous reform in administration, there are new authorities and the staff changes have been an added problem. There is the clear requirement, with which I agree, to shift resources to the cities, where depopulation has occurred. On the other hand, it is necessary to protect domestic ratepayers in less heavily populated areas. I see the necessity for the Secretary of State to retain a considerable degree of latitude in respect of the domestic element of the rate support grant.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) who has led his team so effectively both in the House and in Committee. The members of that Committee, whose proceedings were so effective, reasonable and constructive, will join me in paying tribute to him.
Although I have voiced some criticism of the Bill, I am sure we have presented to the House an effective and fairly-drawn Bill which will perhaps see us through the transitional stage until we address ourselves to the reform of local government finance, which will be no mean job.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I join in welcoming the greater part of the Bill and in the congratulations and thanks which have been expressed to the Minister for his understanding control of the proceedings in Committee and in the House. He has been receptive to many arguments that have been put forward, and valuable changes have been made in the Bill.
I particularly welcome the provisions the Bill makes for new administrative facilities for national parks. We all hope


that this will result in a much greater independence of action in the national parks and in other parts of the countryside.
The Bill as a whole has to be seen in a worrying setting. It is unfortunate that we shall be unable to debate the rate support grant order until the Bill has passed through another place, as the Bill and the order are inextricably linked. The new local authorities which come into office on 1st April have to face many difficult problems. Information about the levels of rate support grant has been given only recently, and local authorities are confused about the way in which the cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will affect them.
There can never have been a more difficult time for local authorities than the present. They have not had time to settle down with their new staffs, and indeed there must be shortfalls in their staff. Therefore, I can well understand the attitude of bodies like the Association of Municipal Corporations, which through its chairman has vigorously expressed its resentment at the comments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who appeared to say that the local authorities had allowed their rates to go up and, in the present situation, were acting irresponsibly. Despite corresponence between the association's chairman and the Chancellor, there has been no attempt by the Chancellor to meet the association to resolve the matter, or indeed to apologise for his statement. It is certainly not an irresponsible matter if local authorities, faced with the problems of large urban areas and impending cuts in expenditure, have to increase their rates.
Special efforts are being made to try to protect individual ratepayers, but an unhappy situation faces all local authorities at present. Therefore, although I give a general welcome to the Bill, I must say that it is being enacted at a worrying time for local authorities. We can only sympathise deeply with those authorities in trying to meet their responsibilities.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: 1, too, shall try to be brief, but I believe that it is important to draw the Minister's attention to some of the points which

have been emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and others.
The Bill is another manifestation of the end of an era in this country. Many things have been happening in the last few months which have had the result of our having to face a different situation.
The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has referred to the Bill's provisions as transitional arrangements. That is the best description that can be made of them, because in so many ways they avoid the real issues that face local authorities in the present era. I shall not pursue those matters, but I think it can be said that confusion is the dominant theme in local administration at present.
Local authorities in beginning to take up their new responsibilities are looking for far earlier guidance from the Government than they are receiving. I repeat that this is undoubtedly a difficult period for local government and certainly for local administrators. In that light I should like to follow the point made and emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan about the rate support grant.
The Minister in his opening remarks said that the rate support grant system was fair. I recognise and appreciate the problems of urban areas and major cities. I realise that the criticism last year was that not sufficient resources were given to those areas. The stresses and strains have been brought home more in the 1970s possibly than in earlier times. But at the same time I must stress that rural areas have problems which are just as intense and which impinge on ordinary people.
The condemnation of the rate support grant is not that it gives money to the urban areas and major cities but that it apparently seems to give them money at the expense of the rural areas. If there had to be additional assistance for urban areas it should be by way of additional subvention from the Exchequer.
I urge the Minister to tell us the new rate support grant figure for the Principality. We had difficulty yesterday in getting a direct answer, even though the Secretary of State for Wales was present. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member


for Cardigan that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be here now, but I point out that when he is here he never answers issues of this kind affecting Wales. Therefore, he might just as well not sit alongside the Minister.
What is the new rate support grant total for the Principality? Our guess is that it is about £195 million, a decrease of approximately £10 million. This is a high figure coming on top of the public expenditure cuts and the impact that they will have in rural areas.
The new authority of Dyfed, which comes into effect in April when three counties will be amalgamating, anticipates a loss of about £3 million. That is a major blow to an area that is already suffering from the problems of reorganisation. Coming on top of that is the new rate support grant system which will affect that authority considerably. As I say, Dyfed estimates the loss to be about £3 million.
I should like to mention two other points. The Minister may be surprised to learn that one is in fact a compliment. I think that most people will welcome the transport supplementation. It will possibly give some hope to certain areas. Some rural areas have major transport problems of various kinds, and the transport supplementation could be of great help to them. If it is a letter of intent, so to speak, that is one thing, but the Minister's commitment can be shown only by how he responds to schemes proposed by local authorities.
If the transport supplementation is to mean anything, it must be shown in terms of cash. Words mean nothing. Cash means everything. This particular part of the Act, as it will be, will be tested by how much money the Government will give to the new authorities in their assessments of the transport needs of the areas.
Finally I come to the local government ombudsman who is to look into administration problems in local government areas. This is a move in the right direction, limited though it might be. I should like to deal with the Minister's argument when he was attempting to justify the assertion that rent scrutiny boards, being judicial bodies, should not be subjected to the powers of the local government ombudsman.
Those boards also have an administrative function, and that is to determine rents at an early stage. In Carmarthenshire the rent scrutiny board is months behind in its determination of fair rents.
Perhaps I may instance a real problem in terms of administration where the ombudsman must step in at some time in the future. Let us say that at the end of 1972 there was an assessment of a particular family which was living in a council house and it had an apartment. The apartment arrangement may have terminated in early 1973, but the tenant is still paying rent as if the lodger or relative was still living there. I have cases in my constituency of people paying a rent on the basis of having with them a lodger or a relative who has long since died.
The rent scrutiny boards have created an administrative problem in South Wales through the delay that is taking place, and unless the people to whom I have referred are dealt with during the next few weeks they will be paying this money until next October. In terms of local government administration, the ombudsman must one day be able to consider the administration of these rent scrutiny boards.
I come back to my original point about the effect of these provisions on the rural areas. I want the Minister to tell us his estimate of the effect on the Principality of the rate support grant provisions that were announced yesterday.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I rise to join my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes; in the tribute he paid to the Minister and his team. I was a tail-end Charlie on the Bill, and I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee which considered it, but I have had the pleasure of serving with the right hon. Gentleman on many other Committees and I know the thoroughness with which he carries out his job.
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the appointment of the local government ombudsman because, like other hon. Members, I know what a sickening feeling it is when one has to say to a constituent "I can make representations, but I can only accept the reply that I receive", knowing that in many cases the


reply will be disappointing and there is nothing that one can do about it.
I agree 100 per cent. with what was said by the hon. Members for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) and Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) about the need to review the rating system. It is a pity that that was not done in the Bill. One has to remember all the external pressures on the House in all these issues. Indeed, it was external pressure on the House that gave us the hotch-potch of local government reorganisation in the first place. As a dedicated "one-tier-in-the-conurbations" man, I believe it is a pity that we have our present system.
I wonder whether we shall ever tackle the question of the rating system without a decision of the House as a House in its entirety that there should be a Royal Commission, with the House itself agreeing its composition and, having agreed that, deciding that it will accept its recommendations. I wonder whether we shall ever get a new rating system without that type of approach.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I express gratitude for the generous words that have been said in this debate. I can add very little to what I said in moving the Third Reading, because most of the comments made are related to matters outside the contents of the Bill and I have always been trained on Third Reading to talk about nothing else than that which is in the Bill.

Mr. Oakes: Except when in opposition!

Mr. Page: Except when in opposition. In particular, the question of the distribution of the rate support grant is not in the Bill ; it will be announced within the next few days. I may be exaggerating slightly, but certainly it will be announced in a week or two. The two hon. Members from Wales will then know the figures and know that their flights of fancy have been quite fictitious.
I remind them that the formula which has emerged as a result of the powers in the Bill meets very much the case of the Welsh counties. There is a substantial sparsity factor in the needs element. The reserve element line—the rateable value

below which a county is entitled to a reserve element—is substantially beneficial to counties such as the Welsh counties. The variable domestic element will be of great benefit and, taking the rate support grant as a whole, never has there been such a large percentage contributed by the taxpayer as 60·5 per cent.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Minister of State will not be allowed to bolt into the same warren as that into which the Secretary of State has escaped on so many occasions with regard to this provision. I respect the Minister of State as a man of great integrity. He knows the figures. He knows that there will be a loss of millions of pounds for Wales.
Will the Minister now not escape behind any technicality but spell out to the Welsh people the emasculation that will take place in regard to local government powers in Wales? Will he tell us exactly how many millions will be lost and where the loss will fall? It would be worthy of the Minister of State were he to do that at this moment.

Mr. Page: There is no emasculation. If I were to start telling any part of the country what will apply to it and what distribution it will be getting out of the rate support grant, I should have to recite 400 sets of figures in respect of every authority. These are not fully calculated as yet. [Hon. Members: "Nonsense."] The Welsh counties have calculated some figures—which have been given across the Floor of the House tonight—which are thoroughly fictitious. They have no information on which to calculate those figures.
I shall not state any figures tonight——

Mr. Morgan: Why not?

Mr. Page: I am not giving any estimate of the loss to Wales or any other part of the country.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister is bolting away from it.

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman had any better formula to put forward for the distribution to meet the needs of those areas which are suffering because they have particular problems, he would do so. We have tried to meet these problems with the formula, by the three things to which I have referred—the sparsity factor in the needs element ; the raising of


the level below which the resources element is granted ; and the variable domestic element. Once one applies that formula, one has to adjust elsewhere. I have said how it will be adjusted elsewhere by those three elements.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is a very important matter. I am sure that even at this late hour it is right that it should be cleared up. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that by the new formula, resources which otherwise—under the old formula—would have gone to rural areas are diverted to urban areas? Can he give a calculation for the whole of England and Wales in respect of the amount that will be diverted from the needs of rural areas to assist urban areas?

Mr. Page: The needs of rural areas have been met by the formula and by the distribution of £488 million, I think the figure is, on variable domestic relief. Those who might otherwise be losing on the resources element as compared with what they received in the previous year will be compensated in that way. This is the way we have endeavoured to work out the formula. However, as I say again, these figures are not in the Bill. They will be announced as soon as possible. I know how necessary it is for local authorities to have these figures as soon as possible, and that is why we have tried to give the information on matters which would normally go into orders which have to be made only when the Bill has received Royal Assent. We have, therefore, tried to put the whole information before the local authorities and before the House as quickly as possible.
As for the remaining comments on the Bill, I take the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) on planning but I think we have extended the jurisdiction of the ombudsman as far as we can cope with it to start with. I do not look upon this jurisdiction as rigid. Let us see how it works. Let us see whether we have put too much or too little work on the new ombudsman. We have spoken of him in the singular, but there will be a number of ombudsmen. They will have a far greater job to do than that of the Parliamentary Commissioner. They have to cover a far wider sphere of issues and

disputes. I am grateful for the kindly acceptance of that part of the Bill because I regard it as of considerable importance.
I shall not spend a long time in winding up the debate or trying to answer all the points which have been made. We did not generate very much heat generally in our arguments on the Bill. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed, but I have noticed that in the last hour or two the temperature in the House has fallen by about 10 degrees. I am frozen, and I want to finish this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Bill accordingly read the Third time That this House do now adourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

HOUSING (BRADFORD)

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The housing situation in Bradford is increasingly desperate and the price of land for building has multiplied tenfold during the last 10 years. The current price of building land in Bradford stands at about £25,000 an acre, and it has also been said that each house costs about £2,000 before a brick is laid. This has had a devastating effect on both local authority and private house building.
Bradford is a low-wage area. With new houses on sale at a minimum of about £7,000 each and usually more, young married couples have no chance whatever of buying a house of their own. They cannot get a mortgage. Even if they could, they would not be able to afford the interest payments, which have spiralled heavenwards to 11 per cent. That means that young people are condemned to living with in-laws. This can create intolerable pressures on the marriage. It is a recipe for divorce, and the in-laws themselves lose privacy and are subject to tensions produced by overcrowding.
A reputable local builder told me tonight that his company has good new houses which it cannot sell because people cannot get the money or afford to buy


them. This means that builders build fewer houses. It is an absolute scandal that a situation has been permitted to develop that new houses lie empty while there is a tremendous unsatisfied demand for homes.
Because new homes are impossibly expensive for people in Bradford, more and more people are applying for local authority tenancies. The waiting list for council homes in Bradford has shot up from 3,483 in February 1972 to nearly 5,500 under two years later, yet there are only just over 25,000 council houses and flats altogether. That means that one family in every five would have to leave their home before all on the waiting list could be found somewhere to live.
This situation grows graver week by week. Nearly 500 aged and handicapped people need special accommodation. They have not got it. Over 600 families from slum clearance areas are awaiting homes. I get complaints in my postbag from constituents living in rat-infested and mice-infested houses while waiting lengthily and impatiently to transfer to a council home. The huge shortage of ground-floor homes means that there are mothers in my constituency who have to drag prams and babies up two flights of stairs. Again, that is a complaint which appears in my postbag.
In 1968, against demands from the Labour Government's housing Minister for 1,200 houses a year in Bradford, against advice from the National Housebuilding Agency and the regional planning council, the new Conservative council majority refused to sanction any new houses. I do not want to make party noises, but the effect of their callous policy was to deprive Bradford, over a period of four years, of about 3,000 new homes. Had they been built, the picture of housing misery today would have been far less bleak. Incredibly that Conservative council, while building little, actually demolished 6,000 dwellings, so that the shortage became even worse.
In the result, sheer lack of homes means that councillors and Members of Parliament can only seldom get satisfaction from the local housing department for their constituents, although one could wish that letters of refusal from the housing

officials conveyed at least more sympathy and less curt indifference.
Over half of the city of Bradford's housing stock was built before 1919. About 16 per cent. of all houses lack one or more basic amenities such as hot water, bath or indoor lavatory. In the new Bradford Metropolitan District it has just been announced that nearly 10,000 council houses need modernisation, at a cost of £30 million. In the private sector the need for modernisation is even greater.
The one bright spot in the sombre picture is Bradford's excellent record in the improvement areas, under councils of different political hue, although it has to be said that houses improved are usually the best of the through-type dwelling house.
Bradford today has the advantage of a determined and very able chairman of city development, Alderman John Senior, and a dedicated housing convener, Councillor Tim Mahon. They are battling with appalling problems. What is needed, in both the private and public sectors, is to build, build and build. Every possible type of shortage, however, exists. Thus, when Bradford finds that it wants to build it is confronted with these handicaps: shortages of materials, of men, of reasonably-priced land and of money. Action on these problems is for the Government and not for Bradford.
Plasterboard has been exceedingly difficult to obtain in the past three months. Plaster itself is scarce. There are few apprentice plasterers. The "lump" ensures high costs and an uncertain labour force. Every house now being built by the corporation is behind schedule. The housing associations, which do good work, are likewise handicapped, and private builders feel obliged to hold back.
In this situation Bradford has sensibly reduced the rate of slum clearance. It is giving 100 per cent. mortgages to those who have difficulty with building societies and is taking the lead by making repayments on those mortgages a good deal easier. An absolute minimum of 1,200 new houses a year in the public sector alone is needed. Local authorities should also buy up new unsold houses so that builders are less afraid to build and are not handicapped by having their money


tied up for long periods in empty houses. Private builders need a good deal more assurance than they have been getting so that they will build to their maximum. Bradford is developing industrially, and for it to continue to do so in an active way it needs to tackle the housing situation.
The Government's duty is to make a decent building programme possible and attainable. The tremendous increase in the price of land is the main problem. It has extremely damaging social effects not only for housing but for education and social services. The situation calls for drastic measures. The Government should at least consider the merits and demerits of taking powers to acquire compulsorily development land at existing use value. Hopefully it could then pass on that land at reasonable prices to local authorities and to private builders alike. That would enable the Government to control the way in which resources are used.
To promote an adequate supply of men and materials for house building, permission for offices, hotels and similar buildings should be most sparingly given. Action should be taken about the "lump". The small number of apprentices now being trained spells future disaster. The building industry is fragmented. Its efficiency could be much improved. Building bottlenecks should occur less often. There could be greater standardisation of some equipment without loss of variety of design.
I urge the Government to set up immediately a Royal Commission or a committee of inquiry into the building industry, and to include in its remit the manufacturers and suppliers of building materials. I ask the Government to introduce an extensive system of awards for good design and construction in house building. It is essential to introduce new legislation as quickly as possible for the proposed new housing action areas. It is likewise essential for the Government to approve as many areas as possible in Bradford under that new legislation as housing action areas with a substantial subsidy. I urge that that subsidy be at 75 per cent., the same as the subsidy which has existed and which is to end under current legislation. I ask for the Minister's assurance on that point.
The compulsory purchase order procedure is dilatory. Why cannot more power to decide such matters be given to officials in the regions rather than have files lying on London desks awaiting decisions by London officials for many months? The regional officials, it can be assumed, are more likely to know the local situation, and delay is not the way to get things moving.
I suppose that it is too much to hope for the repeal of the Housing Finance Act, which forces local authorities to make a profit out of their tenants. The Government should increase the Exchequer subsidy for local authority house building purposes. Something must be done to help Bradford to produce new homes for its people. Something could be done to publicise more the rate rebate scheme, which I find is virtually unknown to many people in Bradford. New houses are the priority. I should like to hear the Government outline their proposals to increase the rate of house building in both the private and the public sector in the interests of all the people of Bradford. The difficulties are appreciated, but stern action is essential.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) for raising this very important subject, which is of considerable interest to the citizens of Bradford. In spite of his disclaimer, the hon. Gentleman could not refrain from a little party politicking. He mentioned in particular Councillors Senior and Mahon and expressed confidence in them, but it was notable that the citizens of Bradford did not express confidence in the party to which Councillors Senior and Mahon belong, because Bradford went markedly Conservative in the spring elections.
It is important to realise that the city of Bradford some six years ago had a surplus of council housing. The priority of the council in the latter part of the 1960s and the early 1970s was to accelerate a programme of improvement, modernisation and repair of the existing council house stock. The council's main emphasis was on providing council accommodation for those who needed it


most—that is, the elderly and the infirm. I believe that to be right. Also, Bradford suffered from a substantial legacy of older council estates, so the council provided more grants for the modernisation and improvement of existing council housing and during the five years up to 1972 an additional £1 million was spent on repairs.
I think it was a very great pity that the hon. Member skated over the fact that the city of Bradford won a gold award for its general improvement areas. Whole areas of the city have been transformed by the general improvement areas. The housing improvement grants have made a substantial difference to people in Bradford. In 1968 only 58 people who owned their own houses took advantage of the discretionary housing improvement grants. By 1973 the figure had risen to no fewer than 2,019.
Bradford has always benefited from having many more houses in owner-occupation than the national average. The national average is 48 per cent. owner-occupiers. In my constituency of Bradford, West the figure is no less than 62 per cent. The proportion of council housing has always been markedly lower than the national average. The national average is 30 per cent. In my constituency the proportion is 19 per cent. This means that people in Bradford have had the benefit of owning their own homes and the difficulty has been that so many of those homes have not had adequate facilities. For example, of the 17,000 households in Bradford, West which are owner-occupied, 1,500 have no bath and 2,500 have outside lavatory facilities. What the Government have been so right to do is to provide the improvement grants that get rid of these antiquated facilities and improve the value of these properties.
On the rented unfurnished side, of 3,000 households in my constituency no fewer than 1,300 have no bath and 1,600 have outside lavatories. Therefore, for private rented accommodation and for owner-occupiers alike the improvement grants have made a very great difference.
The Housing Finance Act has benefited almost half the tenants of local authority housing who have been enabled to get substantial rent allowances, and of course the rent allowances have been extended to

the tenants of private accommodation, whether furnished or unfurnished. These are some of the people most needing assistance.

11.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford East, (Mr. Edward Lyons) for giving us this opportunity to discuss housing in Bradford, and I appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson).
Every town in the country is unique and each has its own housing problem. For that reason alone it is right to spend time in this House in examining the housing situation in Bradford. There may be nothing quite like it anywhere else, but other towns have similar problems. In any event, Bradford merits the consideration of this House in its own right. This is a great city, which has done much in the world and will do more.
No one in his senses would deny that many of Bradford's citizens are at present inadequately housed and that much remains to be done to provide decent homes for them. But in saying this it is only right and fair to pay tribute to Bradford's achievements in the housing field. Over the years, the council has rid the city of much of the bad housing which was a legacy of the last century and by its imaginative efforts and with the help of the higher grants, operated by the present Government, it has achieved a remarkable increase in house improvements.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, East, will know, Bradford's Barkerend general improvement area won a good design in housing award in 1972. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, referred to this in his interesting and informative speech. That area is a model for many older housing areas and its success is not measured solely in design terms. It is a successful operation in terms of human relations and proof that area improvement is well worth the effort. Bradford has demonstrated that it has the right approach to house improvements, and improvements are of vital importance in an old-established community such as this. There is a solid basis in


Bradford on which to make further advances.
I should like to pay tribute to the good relations which have existed for many years between the city council and my Department. There has been very full understanding on both sides of each other's problems and objectives. I am sure this is one tradition which will be continued by the metropolitan district council.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East, raised a number of subjects relevant to housing, some intensely local to Bradford but others with wider implications. In the limited time available I may not be able to reply in the detailed manner that I should have liked. I shall read his speech carefully and write to him on any outstanding points, as I will to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West.
I have mentioned the city council's record on slum clearance. Since the war it has taken action to close or demolish no fewer than 15,000 slum houses. When houses are clearly unfit and redevelopment is the best answer, the council may rest assured that it has our encouragement. We have made this clear in the White Paper "Better Homes: The Next Priorities". What is more, we have removed much of the financial burden of clearance which faces local authorities. The slum clearance subsidy introduced in the Housing Finance Act will subsidise losses following the use of slum clearance powers. Bradford and other local authorities can plan the redevelopment of cleared sites with a much freer hand, and in planning this subsidy we owe much to the city council's explanations of its problems over the years.
But clearance is not the only remedy for unsatisfactory housing. The measures already taken by the Government have helped and are helping Bradford and other towns to deal with substandard houses. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise the importance of this matter. In Bradford, as in other towns, there has been an enormous increase in the number of improvement grants. The number in 1972 was nearly treble the number in 1969—1,824 in all. It looks as though the number for 1973 will be at least as great as that in 1972. I realise that my hon. Friend too was very pleased with the progress made in this respect.
It is our intention to take further measures to increase the options open to local authorities in dealing with their older housing stock. We have introduced legislation which will help to bring the benefits of improvement to those in greatest need. There will be increased rates of improvement grant in general improvement areas and housing action areas. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, East will be pleased to hear this. While grants will still be generally available, we will ensure that help is directed to the areas which need help most. These proposals are aimed to help cities such as Bradford with areas containing particularly difficult housing problems.
There has been some criticism of the decision to end the 75 per cent. rate of grant for house improvements this year. The Government have given the matter most careful consideration but have decided that the deadline on the 75 per cent. grants cannot be extended beyond 23rd June 1974. They have fulfilled their purpose. The assisted areas have caught up with the rest of the country in improvement work of this kind. Higher rates of grant would be better directed towards the special areas of concern which may well include parts of Bradford and which will be dealt with in the new legislation. As I have said, we intend that the 50 per cent. rate of grant will continue, with higher rates available in those special areas. The 50 per cent. grant still represents a remarkably good bargain.
The Housing Finance Act provisions will ensure that substantial aid will continue to be available towards the improvement of older council houses. The costs of improvements and associated repairs in excess of the statutory limits will be reckonable for subsidy purposes. I am sure that the new district council will see the great virtue of a steady programme over the coming years to improve the remaining substandard prewar houses throughout the district.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East was kind enough to praise the work of the housing associations. The new legislation will not only help to concentrate improvement where it is most needed ; it will help the associations to take their rightful place as providers of good homes for families. A strengthened housing


association movement with financial support geared to an increasing rôle will help local authorities to meet local need. In addition there will be variety in both design and style of management. Bradford City Council has worked well with housing associations in the past and there is every reason to hope that this cooperation will continue.
There may well be a continuing demand for houses built and managed by the local authority—although in passing may I say how sensible it is to allow local authority tenants to buy their houses, something which the Bradford City Council has wisely encouraged.
1 accept that in Bradford—and in many other towns—over the past 12 or 18 months housing lists have been lengthening and the number of vacancies in existing council houses has been diminishing. The hon. Member for Bradford, East was right to stress the difficulty caused to families by these problems with the waiting list. We are all disturbed about them and want to do everything we can to ease the problem.
I accept too that there are several groups of people—old people and the disabled—for whom more needs to be done. Assisted by Government finance the city council recognised the need. Nearly 800 council houses are under construction along with nearly 500 housing association houses.
I accept that some families may be living in accommodation which is not really suitable for them. It is, of course, the council's responsibility to allocate the various kinds of accommodation that are available to it. Priorities are a matter of local responsibility and I am sure that the local council does its best, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East referred to the state of the construction industry and what he regards as its inability to deal with the present housing situation. No one would deny that there have been many problems associated with the construction industry over the last year or 18 months. Demand expanded very rapidly and the industry in some respects found it difficult to cope.
There were shortages of some skilled labour, although there were still large numbers of unemployed unskilled men.

The Government undertook a very substantial expansion of places in construction skills in the Government training centres to deal with some of these shortages, particularly in key trades such as bricklaying and carpentry. The provision of places was expanded from 4,500 in 19.72 to 6,500 in 1973 and should be 8,500 this year.
The hon. Member referred to difficulties about shortage of supply of materials. My Department has been closely in touch with the industries and companies responsible for supply and great efforts have been made by them to cope with the rising demand. These efforts have been most successful and we receive many representations of an easing in the situation. However, these efforts could be adversely affected if the fuel supply situation worsened. I am sure the hon. Member appreciates the unfortunate consequence that that could have for the industries which are striving to expand their production.
Another problem arising from the very rapid expansion of demand was the inflation in tender prices. By the autumn of last year most parts of the public sector were suffering price increases at a quite unacceptable rate. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister therefore announced an interruption in the placing of public sector contracts until the end end of the year to deal with the overheating. Since then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on 17th December, as part of a general package to deal with the new economic circumstances, reductions in public expenditure which will have a substantial impact on the demands being placed on the construction industry. I emphasise that.
We have deliberately excluded housing from both the rephasing and reductions in expenditure I have just described precisely because we place the highest priority on the provision of homes. There have been no cuts in housing expenditure. In ideal circumstances we would have continued to seek to solve the difficulties of the construction industry at a time of high demand by removing or minimising constraints on output such as insufficient skilled men. But demand generally has had to be reduced largely because of circumstances outside our control. One


consolation is that this should make it easier for local authorities to get contractors to tender for their housing work.
In all this I am looking beyond the present fuel emergency, which, if it were to continue, would affect the construction and other industries very seriously.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SECOND READING COMMITTEE

LAND REGISTRY BILL [Lords]

Wednesday 23rd January 1974

[SIR RONALD RUSSELL in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Allason, Mr. James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fowler, Mr. Norman (Nottingham, South)


Archer, Mr. Peter (Rowley Regis and Tipton)




Fox, Mr. Marcus (Shipley)


Ashton, Mr. Joe (Bassetlaw)
Green, Mr. Alan (Preston, South)


Atkinson, Mr. Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract)


Awdry, Mr. Daniel (Chippenham)
Hughes, Mr. Mark (Durham)


Bell, Mr. Ronald (Buckinghamshire, South)
Jones, Sir Elwyn (West Ham, South)



Monks, Mrs. Connie (Chorley)


Blenkinsop, Mr. Arthur (South Shields)
Owen, Mr. Idris (Stockport, North)


Clark, Mr. William (Surrey, East)
Silkin, Mr. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Mr. Bruce (Kensington, North)
The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers)


Fidler, Mr. Michael (Bury and Radcliffe)

Resolved,
That if the proceedings on the Land Registry Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[The Solicitor-General.]

10.30 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Land Registry Bill [Lords] ought to be read a second time.
I hope I shall not be put in the position I was in the House yesterday when objection was taken to a lawyer moving the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. I wish, as a lawyer dealing with the Land Registry Bill, that I knew something about conveyancing. I must confess to the Committee that that is a subject upon which my knowledge is absolutely nil.
The effect of the Bill is to convert the Land Registry, which until now has been a Government Department, into a public authority outside the Government service.
I can at once reassure the Committee on two points. First, the changes effected by the Bill are organisational only. The

system of land registration remains substantially unaltered, and so no one need fear that he must learn a lot of new law. Secondly, the Bill implies no criticism of the present organisation. Land registry is efficiently run and will continue to be well run in future within the new framework which is created by the Bill. The Government believe that these organisational changes and the new management framework will make the Land Registry better able to fulfil its functions in administering the land registration system, and in particular to proceed with its programme of expansion.
The essential feature of the new organisation is that the Land Registry will become an independent, self-financing public body subject to ministerial control over its broad policy but not in its day-to-day work. This approach is consistent with our general view that Government should not perform directly those functions or provide those services which can be performed or provided as well, or better, by a body not subject to detailed ministerial control. In our view, there is no reason why a Minister rather than a board should be directly responsible for the day-to-day management of land registry, although it is right that Ministers should control such


matters as the pace at which the compulsory areas are extended and the level of fees charged to the public. This is provided for in the Bill.
These arguments of principle, which we consider are sound in themselves, are strongly reinforced in this context by practical considerations. It is a melancholy fact that, although universal registration of title is now generally accepted as a proper aim, slightly over half the population of England and Wales lives in areas where registration of title is not available. To remind the Committee why this is so, 112 years after the Land Registry Act 1862, it is necessary for me briefly to deal with the history.
The 1862 Act was too rigid since it aimed at registration of perfect titles to areas of land precisely defined. It was replaced in 1875 by a new system substantially the same as that now in force whereby the Registrar had a wide discretion as to the titles he might accept and the land was described by reference to general boundaries. Under the 1875 Act regisiration was at first purely voluntary, but in 1897 the principle of compulsory registration was introduced whereby county councils could apply for an Order in Council making registration compulsory on sale in that area.
The 1925 property legislation included a new Land Registration Act which is still the principal statute. Although mainly consolidating, it included some new principles, of which one was that the Government could itself take the initiative in designating an area of compulsory registration. But since the case for registration of title was still being argued, there was a delay of 10 years before the Government could use that power in order to see whether the rest of the 1925 legislation, as was claimed, had so simplified unregistered conveyancing that it was unnecessary to extend the registration system.
At the end of this trial period, the Government designated Middlesex and Croydon as compulsory areas and would have brought in Surrey but for the outbreak of war. The Surrey order was not made until 1951 and it was challenged by three local law societies which had a statutory right to call for a public inquiry. That inquiry was conducted by Mr. Neville Gray, KC, who, after hearing

arguments from both sides, recommended that the order be confirmed. Registration was shown to his satisfaction to have substantial advantages of simplicity and cheapness, as well as the security provided by the State guarantee, which are of particular value to the purchasers of small plots of land. The Gray Report virtually concluded the debate and the advantages of registration have been accepted ever since without serious dispute. The problem has been to extend the system.
Between 1952 and 1964 registration was extended by request to Kent, Berkshire and 11 county boroughs, but by 1964 it still covered only 14 million people. On 11th August 1964 the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, announced a carefully planned expansion programme, which became known as the "eight-year plan", for extending the system to all built-up areas, with a total of 40 million inhabitants by April 1973. I gladly acknowledge that Lord Gardiner enthusiastically took up that programme when he succeeded Lord Dilhorne and for a time all went well. But in 1968 the manpower restrictions introduced throughout the Civil Service by the Labour Government brought the programme to a virtual standstill from which it has never recovered.
In fact, by April 1973 the compulsory areas still covered only 22 million people, which means that the eight years had brought in only 8 million and not 26 million as planned. Under Orders in Council recently made, largely to round off some of the revised local government areas, another 2 million people will be brought into the system by March of this year. That will bring the total to 24 million out of a population of about 49 million. But the prospects of further expansion will be bleak if we do not make the reorganisation proposed in the Bill.
I do not think that any party can make political capital out of this situation. The Labour Government halted the eight-year programme as a result of manpower restrictions, but equally we have been unable to revive it. The fact is that, so long as the Land Registry remains part of central Government, it will continue to be affected by economic and other factors which apply to the functions of Government but which are, in truth, irrelevant


to a body which provides services to the public, as the Land Registry does. That is why I say that considerations of principle lead to the conclusion that the Land Registry ought to be hived off and the need to expand the system makes this a matter of considerable importance from the practical point of view.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is the summary of that argument that everything can go forward nicely as long as it is out of the clutches of the Treasury?

The Solicitor-General: History has shown that, although since 1964 both Labour and Conservative Governments were anxious that this should be extended, since 1967 neither administration has been able to do what it wanted because of the restrictions upon Civil Service manpower.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: What are the figures at the moment? I understand from the Bill that a total staff of about 5,000 is anticipated. What are the present figures, and what increases may we expect?

The Solicitor-General: The present figure is 4,973. By how many the staff would have to be extended will depend on how much work is brought in. It will be a matter of recruitment and ability to move ahead as one wants.

Mr. Atkinson: It would seem that 23 men are now to solve the problem of the Land Registry. What the Government are proposing is to sign up 23 people to bring the figure up to 5,000. That presumably is the basis of Tory policy.

The Solicitor-General: By the time the programme is fully under way, it is expected that a further 2,500 men will be required to implement the extension.

Mr. Atkinson: A figure of 7,500 altogether. So the Bill is incorrect?

The Solicitor-General: No. The Bill deals with what is required at the moment, but as the programme advances the figure will be increased.
Before turning to the details of the Bill, I should like to mention briefly its effect on the customers and on the staff of the Registry. I do not believe that the customer would be adversely affected in any way. The State guarantee, which is an important part of the present system, will remain undiminished, though it will

be provided in future by a public authority backed by Government finance, as the Bill provides, instead of by the Government. Its value will remain unimpaired. The public will, therefore, lose nothing under the Bill but will gain the advantages of an expanded system in those areas where compulsory registration still does not apply.
The staff have naturally been concerned to know what their position will be in future. It has been carefully explained to them. The Committee might like to be reassured about this. All staff at present serving with the Land Registry will be transferred to the new organisation on the appointed day. They will cease to be civil servants, but we are prepared to guarantee that the terms of employment offered will be the terms on which staff were serving on the day before transfer. Moreover, it is the Government's intention that after the change Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff concerned so that there will be freedom of transfer between the Land Registry and Government Departments. The staff of the Land Registry will continue to belong to the Civil Service Superannuation Scheme and all the new conditions of service and pay agreed for civil servants will apply automatically to them.
The arrangements necessary to bring all this about are under discussion with the staff side.
I now deal briefly with the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 describe the structure of the new authority which is to conduct the business of land registration in conjunction with the Chief Land Registrar. There will be a board of about eight members, including the chairman. Full-time working members of the board will initially be drawn from the senior members of the present management and in future members of the staff will no doubt be promoted to it. This must necessarily be so in a technical organisation of this kind which requires experience and expertise on the board.
Some part-time members from outside, to represent the public interest and the professions, will also be provided. Not more than one of those is expected to be a solicitor.
The Chief Land Registrar is to be ex officio the chairman. This again seems to us inevitable in view of the technical


nature of the work, which requires an experienced lawyer to be in charge. It has always been the position up to now that the Chief Land Registrar has been in sole charge and responsible to the Lord Chancellor for the conduct of business, and a legally qualified chairman will still be required.

Mr. Ronald Bell: To whom will the chairman be responsible from a parliamentary point of view? Now that the Post Office, for example, is a public corporation it is not possible for us to ask questions about its day-to-day management.

The Solicitor-General: He will be the chairman of a public body but there will be the over-riding ministerial control exercised by the Lord Chancellor.

Clause 3 transfers the function of conducting the business of the Land Registry, including the Land Charges and Agricultural Credits departments, to the new authority on the appointed day. Clause 4 sets out the powers and duties of the new authority.

Mr. Silkin: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would help me a little further on the reply that he gave to his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
Does his reply mean that it will be possible to table questions for answer by the Attorney-General on the administration of the body in its new form, or will such questions be out of order?

The Solicitor-General: I should like a little time to consider that. Under the present system, whereby the Lord Chancellor has ministerial responsibility, the Law Officers act as his agent. But I will confirm that later if I may. My experience in the House is very short, but it would seem that the usual ministerial responsibility of Law Officers as agents of the Lord Chancellor would apply and questions could be asked.

Mr. Idris Owen: Can my hon. and learned Friend tell us what questions have been asked in the House about the Land Registry? I cannot recall any.

The Solicitor-General: I know of none.
Subsection (1)(c) of Clause 4 provides for a code of practice so that some matters of detail can be removed from the ambit of the Rule Committee and dealt with by the board. Subsection (3) enables the registers to be inspected for the purposes of investigating or prosecuting criminal offences or recovering the proceeds of crime.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Surely there will be no parliamentary control because it will not be possible to ask questions. On another point, my hon. and learned Friend said something about the work being limited by the restrictions on the growth of the Civil Service. Will the matter be dealt with by retaining these people but ceasing to classify them as civil servants?

The Solicitor-General: No, that is not so. It is the policy of the Government that departments which, in particular, can be self-supporting and are not a drain upon the State should be made public authorities rather than be organs of Government, which is unnecessary.
The general question of the privacy of the register has recently aroused some discussion. It was raised in the debate on the Bill in another place. Members of this House have expressed concern from time to time about the problems of discovering the owner of property in connection with criminal proceedings or the enforcement of repairing covenants in a lease. A Private Member's Bill has been introduced by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on this subject, although we do not know precisely what it will contain.
To open the register completely to all and sundry would be a controversial step which I cannot recommend to the House. Many people would object to the financial details of their transaction, such as the price paid, the amount of mortgage, the figure of rent, as well as the existence of cautions and other restrictions, being freely available to the public.
The Law Commission is examining the matter in its general work on the land registration system and any substantial change should await their report.
We have thought it right, however, to deal with the problems connected with the criminal law in subsection (3) of Clause 4 and I shall be introducing a


new Clause in Committee to enable the name and address of the registered proprietor of a registered title to be furnished by the Registry on receipt of an application in the prescribed form, accompanied, as is inevitable, by the prescribed fee. I think this will cover the practical problems of tenants and others who wish to find out the ownership of land, and it is as far as I can advise hon. Members to go at present.

Clause 5 provides for the appointment and qualification of the Chief Land Registrar and his deputy.

Clause 6 reserves to the Chief Land Registrar his judicial functions and enables him to give the authority directions of a technical nature as to the examination of title and the keeping of the registers.

Clauses 7 and 8 give the Lord Chancellor the degree of ministerial control which is required in that he may give directions on policy matters and he is to receive an annual report which is to be laid before Parliament.

Clauses 9 to 15 contain financial provisions of the usual kind. The Land Registry is to break even on its revenue account and to comply with other directions it may receive in respect of its financial target.

Under Clause 10 the authority assumes an initial debt in respect of property and liabilities which it will take over from the Crown.

Clause 11 gives the necessary borrowing powers.

Clause 12 enables the Lord Chancellor, with the approval of the Treasury, to give directions about the application of surplus revenue. He can require any surplus to be paid to the Crown, but I emphasise that this power is there only in case it should be needed. It is no part of our purpose that the Land Registry should become a profit-making body for the benefit of the Crown.

Clause 13 enables the Treasury to guarantee the authority's borrowing. Clause 14 requires the authority's accounts to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament. Clause 15 requires the fee-making power, which will continue to be exercised by the Lord Chancellor with appropriate advice, to be used so as to give the Land Registry the

revenue which it will need, and covers other points of detail.

Those are the financial provisions which can be discussed if necessary in detail in Committee. In essence, they require the Land Registry to be self-supporting from its fee income, but to receive the financial backing of the Treasury if need be.

The remaining clauses are miscellaneous and supplemental. Schedules 1 to 4 contain detailed provisions as to the membership and staff of the authority, the transitional provisions which are necessary, and adaptation and amendment of existing legislation and repeals, as required.

I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. Michael Fidler: As, to all intents and purposes, the Land Registry will operate and carry out the same functions as before, am I correct in thinking that what has given rise to the exercise is the feeling that manpower cannot be acquired by Government Departments but is more freely available in the private sector? If I am, on what basis is that theory put forward? If the only purpose is to make a distinction without a difference, can my hon. and learned Friend say what effective improvements will be made as a consequence of the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: The principal purpose—and this is in accordance with the Government's philosophy—is that the Government should not perform directly those functions or provide those services which can be provided equally well, or better, by a body not subject to detailed ministerial control. It can be argued that there is no reason why a Minister rather than a board should be directly responsible for the day-to-day control of a body such as this.

10.55 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The Opposition naturally favour extending compulsory land registration throughout the country, particularly in built-up areas. We think it deplorable—and I am glad that the Government take the same view—that less than half the land in the country is registered taking a population basis, and less than 10 per cent. taking an area basis. We recognise the advantages of land registration in its simplicity and


comparative cheapness and of the Government guarantee to the registered title that it carries.
I confess that it was consideration of the benefit of extending compulsory land registration, and perhaps an over-innocent expectation that the Bill would advance that purpose, which led me to agree, if somewhat reluctantly, that the Bill should go through the Second Reading procedure. Having heard the Solicitor-General, I am not persuaded of the purpose and value of this new machinery.
I cannot help observing that the Government are victims of the same political demonology from which the previous administration suffered, namely, the menace of too many civil servants. It would seem that this is nothing but a large camouflage operation and it will, of course, give a glorious five minutes to the Minister for the Civil Service, who will be able to announce a dramatic reduction in the number of civil servants by nearly 5,000. What a glorious day it will be. Therefore, one cannot help detecting in the Bill a shadow of that remarkable and so curiously described document "The Better Tomorrow" which was the great statement of Government policy at the last election.
The machinery that is proposed will create a new authority. We are told that the change is merely organisational. Therefore, is the purpose of the change merely to make a bow in the direction of the political demonology that I have mentioned, and is it an ideological exercise in the operation of the hiving-off principle? We would like the Government to come clean on the purposes of the Bill. The important and critical matter which we wish to be informed about is, will it result in a rapid extension of compulsory land registration?
We are told by the Solicitor-General that the Land Registry is efficiently run at the moment, and the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor said the same in a debate in another place. As one hon. Member has pointed out, we are not aware that many questions have been raised in the House about its operations. Indeed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, I do not know of one. Therefore, apparently, the fault does not lie in the organisational structure or the

competence of those who presently run the Land Registry.
The suspicion, therefore, grows rapidly that this is a sham and hollow exercise and we shall want some reassurance about it before the end of the debate. From the point of view of the public, and of Members of Parliament, the new setup will diminish the capacity of Parliament to influence that which takes place at present within the ambit of the Land Registry. That somewhat disturbing result comes about because it is always much more difficult to table questions effectively about the activities of a board, even though there is overall alleged ministerial control. One precise and specific respect in which the public and the Member of Parliament will be worse off is that no longer will the ombudsman machinery be available to examine complaints of maladministration by the new structure.
In paragraph 42 of Schedule 3 there is a provision which states:
Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which specifies the government departments and other authorities subject to investigation under that Act) shall be amended by omitting the words 'Land Registry'.
Thus the valuable weapon that the machinery of the Parliamentary Commissioner presently gives Members of Parliament as watchdogs of the individual citizen's need for protection against maladministration will disappear. With respect to the Solicitor-General, we shall need more convincing evidence of the value of that which is to be gained, balanced against that which is to be lost, by this new machinery before we give the Bill a fair wind.
Referring to the structure of the authority, we have been informed, rightly, that the Chief Land Registrar will be a lawyer. What will be the qualifications of the other members? If this structure is to go through I can understand that those who presently run it should provide the major management. Is it intended that there should be any outside representatives in this new authority? The Committee is entitled to know the proposed qualifications for membership.
The Solicitor-General touched upon a matter which concerns us greatly on this side of the Committee, namely, the omission of any provision to make the


registers open to public inspection. Practically the whole world makes no secret about who owns the land—and "the whole world" in this observation includes Scotland, Northern Ireland and, by an historic idiosyncrasy, Yorkshire, because not only of the enlightenment of the people of Yorkshire but the happy survival and accident of the Yorkshire Deeds Registry. Even the enlightened Principality of Wales does not make it possible for local authorities, the police, and such bodies as housing trusts and amenity societies anxious to know who is responsible for proposed skulduggery and who has been responsible for it in the past. The tenant often does not know who his landlord is—some shadowy name of a subsidiary company masquerading and concealing itself under a number of surnames with no means of identification.
This state of affairs is intolerable and the Opposition believe that it should be remedied. If the Government's answer is, "We are waiting for the report of the Law Commission", our reply is there is not all that urgency over this organisational change, which could wait until the Law Commission reported. But the Law Commission has already produced a most interesting working paper in which alternative proposals are made, but where the message seems to be clear.
As I have said, the register is open to public inspection within these islands, namely, in Scotland. Often in matters of this kind Scotland is far ahead of us in the protection that it gives. We found a long time ago, that the people of Scotland have enjoyed better protection than the rest of the British Isles for a very long time. There is no evidence that it has caused grave difficulty in development in Scotland or any sense of outrage by those who are owners of the land. Indeed, it has made possible the exposure of land ownership questions in Scotland—and a jolly good thing too!
The fact that local authorities often have desperate problems in discovering who owns the property in their area is intolerable. In my constituency in West Ham, partly because of the blitz but also because of this problem, the local authorities had considerable difficulty in discovering who owned the land, with a view to their taking over and compulsorily developing it. Strange strategems

have to be embarked upon in order to discover who the landlord is and to smoke out his identity. The Opposition consider that that position should be remedied forthwith.
I understand that the Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is not to be given the blessing of the Government.

The Solicitor-General: do not think we have seen it.

Sir E. Jones: He may not have seen it, but I have been shown correspondence indicating that the Minister directly concerned does not seem disposed to give the scheme his support. We have had no indication from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government at this stage are prepared to do that which, when the public know about this, there will be an increasing demand to be done.
So much for the position of local authorities. Bodies like housing trusts similarly have difficulty. I understand that bodies like the Friends of the Lake District who would like to discuss the matter reasonably with the relevant owners cannot do so because they cannot find out who they are.
The position of the tenant is also intolerable. It is easy to discover who are the occupiers of premises because they are rated, but it is difficult for the tenant to find out who the landlord is. I should like to see more precision.

Mr. Atkinson: I understand that the tenant has a legal right to that knowledge.

Sir E. Jones: Yes, but he cannot obtain the information. The Lord Chancellor said in another place that there is to be a provision in the Housing and Planning Bill to put this matter beyond doubt and to enable the tenant to have that information. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us when that Bill is to see the light of day. He need not tell us today, but we should like to know precisely what the proposal is in regard to what my hon. Friend has called the tenant's right to know who his landlord is.
The next matter to which I should like to refer is the financial provision in the Bill to which the hon. and learned Gentleman made brief reference. I have read


with fascination the provision under which surplus revenue is to be paid to the Lord Chancellor. I thought, "Splendid ! Now we shall have a considerable fund available for the needs of the administration of justice in this country." I thought that this would be a rich source of finance which could be used to improve the courts, to extend legal aid and to do all sorts of other desirable things. But the profit is to go back to the maw of the Treasury.
We have had an assurance that the Land Registry is not intended to be a profit-making organisation. The vast increase in the price of land and the galloping inflation resulting from property speculation which has been an outstanding feature of our social life in the last three years has resulted in millions of pounds of profit being made, and the sole assurance we have is that hereafter it is not intended to be a profit-making body.
We should like to know more about the principles on which the new public authority is to operate. Is it to keep fees down at a fairly balanced level to ensure that profit-making does not arise? If there is to be profit-making, may we know a little more about the purposes to which the profits are to be put?
There are many matters which we shall want to canvass in Committee. Finally, I should like to ventilate the concern which I understand has been expressed by those presently employed in the Land Registry as to the effect of the changes on their prospects and prospects for promotion. Certain undertakings were given by the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading. There was a refusal to accept a proposal in another place that the undertakings so given should be embodied in the Bill. I think the Committee would like to know the nature of the representations that have been made to the Government from the staff side and what response has been given to the anxieties which I understand are still felt among certain members of the staff.
We are deeply suspicious about the true purpose of the Bill and its usefulness, and we shall need a lot of reassuring before we give it our full and enthusiastic support.

11.13 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I was not able to follow the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) in that part of his speech which referred to the charges. I should be sorry if the Land Registry were to make any appreciable profit. One of the troubles with which it is faced is that the gap between the cost of transferring registered land and transferring unregistered land is closing.
An important merit of the land registration procedure was its offer of cheapness in the conveyance of land to the people concerned, because the transfer of land in this country, and possibly elsewhere, is extremely expensive. For the average member of the public it must seem almost an unduly expensive operation. There is a risk, when land prices have risen, that the State, not in its taxing capacity but in its administrative capacity, will join in the inflation and say, "This bit of land is changing hands at £80,000. A land registration fee of so much is chicken feed ; it ought to be more". If there is to be any arrogation to the State of the profits or proceeds of land transactions, it should be done through the taxation machinery of the State. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South agrees with me about that.
I do not want to digress into matters which are not narrowly concerned with the subject we are debating, but my experience is that speculation has nothing to do with the level of land prices ; it is the law of supply and demand, and inflation.
What concerns me in the Bill is not the desire to extend land registration, which I support. Indeed, one of the disappointments about land registration is not merely the gradual growth of cost, but the fact that there are too many registers, the system is becoming too complicated, and there are too many chinks. It would be nice if, in the case of registered land, one could ignore the previous bonuses, assurances, and so on, and say that either something is on the register or it simply does not exist as a legally enforceable matter. Unfortunately, that is not the position. We should have a look at this sometime, be more rigorous and simplify it, saying that anything not


registered is just not there. Then one would be able to rely on the register. One could pay one's fee and be told that there are burdens on the land, and that is all. But that is not the present position. Therefore, I favour the extension of land registration in every way.
However, the Bill causes me a good deal of anxiety. The Land Registry is functioning efficiently. There are slight delays, and one accepts certain delays nowadays because of the shortage of manpower, the reasons for which are political, and which I shall not go into. Yet the Bill is presented to us primarily on the principle that where something can be done outside the organisation of the State it should not be done in a manner subject to the detailed control of the Minister.
Does that mean that the Lord Chancellor is worried about his own effect on the Land Registry or about possible interference by a successor? Or does it mean that the staff of the Lord Chancellor's Department are worried about the Lord Chancellor's intervention in the running of the Land Registry? Of course, this is nonsense.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman put a number of possibilities and alternatives, but he left out the possibility that the Lord Chancellor is concerned about his influence on his Cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Bell: I do not think that is one of the troubles. I do not think that ministerial intervention in the Land Registry is any problem, ever has been, or ever will be. The point is that the Lord Chancellor and perhaps his advisers would like to expand land registration more quickly than they have been able to do because of the restrictions on public service manpower.
With respect to the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, it is not only in one Conservative manifesto that anxiety has been expressed about the growth of the Civil Service. That is a fairly common feature of politics, especially at present. When it is suggested that the staff of the Land Registry should be increased by at least 50 per cent.—probably by about 5,000 to 8,000—it is a difficult proposition.
Therefore, the purpose of the Bill is to reclassify the present Registry staff, who

are civil servants. We may have a reduction of 5,000 in the numbers of civil servants, which is very gratifying, but we will have increased the staff in the public service—which is a different thing—and we get on with our land registration.
I would prefer that we were told that, national difficulties or not, it is desirable in the public interest to increase the rate of land registration and that will mean more people and more civil servants. I would consider that on its merits. Probably I would be in favour of it and would say, "There it is ; it means more civil servants". But the business, which has been going on for some time, of reclassifying departments of State as public corporations and striking their staff out of the list of civil servants is nonsense and it has gone too far.
In my intervention, I mentioned the Post Office being turned into a public corporation because both sides of the House agreed that it was a fine thing. I think that pretty well all of us on both sides now realise that it was a bad thing. One can no longer ask questions in the House about the day-to-day management of either the postal or the telecommunications service. Of course, there is a general overriding ministerial responsibility in the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and we are told that here there will continue to be a general ministerial responsibility in the Lord Chancellor in this respect ; but a general ministerial responsibility which cannot be questioned in Parliament is not one of the most useful of our public institutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) asked how often questions relating to the Land Registry appear on the Order Paper. It is not correct to say that they never appear, but they do not often appear. But by removing them from the sphere of the Civil Service one expressly disconnects the competence of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and one has to watch how these matters develop when they are no longer subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Under the charging provisions in the Schedule, there is power for the Lord Chancellor not merely to increase charges by statutory instrument, I assume subject to annulment by Prayer—I would like to know about that—but to give power to


the registering authorities to vary the charges, not by statutory instrument, but by powers delegated under a statutory instrument.
I have never liked, nor has the House, the delegation of powers under statutory instruments, particularly in the matter of charging. If one is to have this kind of delegation and one is to float the matter financially and even make provision about what happens to the profit, some form of parliamentary scrutiny of the operation is desirable. Perhaps I am making heavy weather of these points on a Bill of this kind because we are concerned with a very small department. It deals with a relatively small but technical function of the State, but we are asked to accept the Bill.
I regard the Bill as one of those unnecessary Bills which clutter up the parliamentary timetable and are introduced for ulterior motives, though not in any bad sense. People always think that they are doing what is best in the public interest. But such Bills disconnect Parliament and disconnect political criticism about growth of the staff. That is not a good thing. I am unenthusiastic about the Bill, but how far my unenthusiasm takes me will depend on what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General says.

11.28 a.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: As do many other hon. Members, I agree in principle with land registration and I accept what is contained in the Bill. However, I reject the purpose of the Bill and I am totally opposed to the hiving-off process that it envisages, and so I shall vote against it. I believe that it is a first step in taking from the Civil Service an organisation to minimise accountability of land registration.
The second step envisaged by the Government, in keeping with their philosophy and attitude towards political structures, is to appoint either Harry Hyams or Billy Butlin as chairman of the board. That is another stage in the process of the diminution of the Civil Service as a central State organisation. As I am totally opposed to the principle of hiving-off in this way, unless my hon. and learned Friend can put forward convincing arguments to show why the Opposition should support the Bill, thus creating

a rod for our own backs, we should oppose the whole principle of the hiving-off of this service.
One understands the attitude of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell): here is a mathematical gain in the sense of reducing the Civil Service by 5,000 and creating a new service in the future of 7,500 people not directly employed by the State. One presumes that it is politically advantageous to do that as part of the argument that the Conservative Party stands for a reduced Civil Service. That was one of the Tories' commitments at the last General Election and this is therefore part of the process of carrying out one of their electoral promises. I do not know what other electoral promises they have implemented, but this is certainly one that they may intend to meet.
In principle I agree with the hon. and learned Member that anything that is not in the registry, is not there. If that principle could be established, that would be a tremendous step forward in the whole business of conveyancing. I believe that it is an objective which the Labour Party, when returned to Government, very soon now, will adopt as one of its priorities.
But what mainly concerns us is the whole purpose of the organisational change envisaged in the Bill. It is a move to which I am fundamentally opposed. There are many reasons why that opposition has been made clear from time to time, but certainly the process of taking away from the Civil Service should be resisted.
I also have doubts about the functions of the Lord Chancellor as a non-elected person. I am opposed in principle to people being members of a Cabinet when they have not been elected and are therefore not answerable to the people. It is a part-time democracy if we have a political system in which people are appointed members of a collective, democratic, decision-making body. We detract from the principle of democracy by having non-elected people in the Cabinet responsible for collective decisions.
I also agree with the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South when he objects to delegated legislation


of the kind we now see. It is an obnoxious way of doing things and as Members of Parliament we should be concerned. Too little attention is paid to many of these orders—thousands of them in the course of a Parliament—that go through without any attention whatsoever, delegating massive authority to non-elected people.
I realise that one of the weaknesses of the Labour administration was to bog down the parliamentary machine by being perhaps over-conscious about democratic practice. There are limits to what can be done in Parliament. I hope that when the time comes, we shall not repeat the mistakes of the 1964–70 Government in the sense, as one of my right hon. Friends said, that we then could operate morning, afternoon and night—go round the clock if necessary—to use the parliamentary machine and ensure that full democratic attention was given to all matters. I do not believe that the parliamentary machine could stand such a burden: it is not built for it. Members of Parliament cannot, night after night, operate round the clock as we were doing at one period of the Labour Government.
It could be said that arithmetically we got through a lot of business and took many decisions, but the quality of those decisions was suspect as a result of asking Members to get into a kind of clockwork orange and keep going night after night in order to push through this tube called Parliament all this legislation delegating authority to act. Mistakes occur in that way. But, having said that as my qualification for the principle I have tried to establish, I must add that the business of hiving-off functions of this kind away from the State machine is to be deplored and is, in the end, a diminution of democratic practice.
I want to go the other way. I want to hive-on these sorts of functions, because I believe that they are an essential part of the fabric of our government. I want to increase the democratic content of our way of doing things. In principle, part of our philosophy is to add rather than subtract from the State machine, laudable as is the principle of extending land registration. But my opposition to the Bill is not against that purpose, but against the idea of detracting

from the responsibility of Parliament and an elected Minister.
Secondly, will it be any cheaper in the end? By extending the service in this way, will there be less cost involved to a person conveyancing land? I made some inquiries earlier about the numbers of house sales involving land conveyancing that are dealt with each year. I am told that, on average, it is about 600,000 a year. That is, I believe, the bread and butter of the solicitors' business. They underwrite their profession by deals of this sort.
How accurate that figure is, I do not know, but, obviously, if there is to be any extension of the percentage of owner-occupied houses—now approximately 50 per cent.—and if there is to be greater flexibility of movement about the country, a return to our nomadic heritage so that people move around more than now, conveyancing will attract much more business and the figure of 600,000 will be increased. But will conveyancing be cheaper? I see nothing on the horizon to suggest that solicitors will reduce their charges as a result of the Bill.
Thus, part of the opposition to this sort of structure and the ideas set out once again in the Bill is that there does not seem to be any benefit to the owner-occupier involved in conveyancing. In my view, the Labour Party will have to consider the whole principle of log-book registration of property. I know that solicitors would howl in protest and would probably march to Parliament to stop anything like that ; or they might go on strike—there are so many solicitors in this place that if they went on strike, Parliament could not function!
But there is no doubt that we have seriously to take up the idea of a logbook technique so that we can extend do-it-yourself registration and conveyancing, simplifying the procedure and reducing the expense when selling a house or land. We should make that process easier. I am a great advocate of do-it-yourself conveyancing, and I believe that the Land Registry organisation envisaged in the Bill should be designed to make that possible.
One of the objects of the Labour movement over the years has been to bring about easy conveyancing of property. I return to the principle stated by the hon.


and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, namely, that anything not registered is not there. That is the first step towards the creation of a log-book technique for the registration and conveyancing of property. That is the way it should be done to make it much easier, because if we say that one of the jobs in our new society will be to enable people to move from one place in the country to another, and allow them to move much more easily in order that we can have a flexible job exchange and more mobility in the community, we must at the same time ensure that there are not problems about the ownership of houses.
If the Conservative Party is an advocate of a property-owning democracy it should make sure that society is adequately equipped to enable that kind of philosophy to be applied. When the Tories speak of mobility in society, that part of their argument is a sham for they have failed to provide the equipment whereby people can easily move and communicate around the country. That is another of the political principles involved.
Public inspection is essential. A cardinal principle must be enabling people to see what is happening about the registration of land and to know what are the obligations in connection with that land.
One of the admirable features of the registration of rents, for instance, is that in principle rents are open to inspection. A person should be able to see what are comparable rents for properties similar to his home. It is a principle of democracy. If one is talking about property-owning as part of a developing democracy, it is essential that there should be maximum knowledge available to every member of the community, on an equal basis about what is happening with that property. Public inspection is, therefore, a cardinal principal which must be clearly spelled out if we are to read into the whole subject of land registry the sorts of advances that we are asked to believe to have been made.
Finally, I come to what I regard as my most important point, for it concerns the future of the Labour Party and its attitude towards land registration. I am an advocate of the public ownership of all land. That may be Utopian at the moment. The step may be too big, the

river to cross too wide for the size of boats we now have. I believe, however, that we can get very near it.
What we can do is to minimise the gains created by speculation by changing a few simple rules. I believe the Labour Party will have to produce a Land Registry Bill in much more complicated style and with much greater depth in principle than this. That Bill would attempt to change the nature and character of our society, and therefore a different Bill would be necessary
As part of the instrument of change, however, I believe that Land Registry will be an essential part of the process. By that, I mean that in the Land Registry must be some information about planning practice. If we are arguing now for a system of planning registration, together with land registration, those things must be brought together to make feasible the policy that we advocate.
I am honoured to be alongside my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), whose family has long been associated with these exciting ideas of trying to take capital gain out of land change. They have related land and its ownership to progressive development of our ideas for our kind of society.
The Labour Party would want to do two things. First, it would want to register ownership of land. It would want to keep to the principle that anything not registered, is not there, but it would want to apply that principle to the whole subject of planning and what a local authority would want to do with that land within the foreseeable future beyond its registration.
Secondly, if our rolling programme, as envisaged by the Labour Party to minimise the capital gains involved in land transfer and development, is to be carried out, we must make it obligatory upon society to register intention to change the use of the land, or to change the shape of the property occupying the land.
Putting those two together, we need a different organisation. Part of the problem is the myriad administrative hotchpotch, particularly in London where there are a mass of contradictory organisations all trying to function without letting each other know what they are doing.
Our society has become so complicated that it takes legal minds many hours to sort out some of the complexities. There are so many conflicting interests involved today in land use, property, planning and so forth, that they protract the whole process of change over too long a period. In order to simplify the procedure and give maximum benefit to the people, it is necessary to co-ordinate the process. I believe that registration is one way of doing that.
Those are my objections to the Bill. Those are some thoughts as to the political significance of what is being done right now. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that my hon. Friends will oppose the Bill in order that we can claim continuity when the time comes to introduce our own legislation. We believe that all organisations of this kind should be directly responsible to the Ministers concerned ; they should be part of the parliamentary method, and what the Government envisage here is something which is extra-mural in that sense. It is outside the parliamentary method, and for that reason I am opposed to it.

11.47 a.m.

Mr. James Allason: I am rather puzzled by the political philosophy of the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). He wanted to add to the State machine in order to achieve democratic control, but the democratic control approved by the Labour Party is usually democratic control where they are in power. When another party is in power and passes a law that is objectionable to it, the Labour Party says, "It is perfectly reasonable to disobey that law".
We have had frequent instances of the Opposition supporting those who are breaking the law on the ground that it is a law of which they do not approve. We must assume, therefore, that what is wanted is democratic control, so long as it is the sort of democratic control of which the hon. Gentleman approves.
I wonder what the hon. Gentleman means. Is he suggesting that all nationalised industries should come under democratic control, that they should be brought back under the control of Parliament, even at the expense of Members walking through the lobbies all through the night? It may be that he wants that, but I must

say I find the thought an absolute nightmare.

Mr. Atkinson: I am suggesting that in principle it should be within the control of the parliamentary method. I am not saying that day-to-day administration and administrative detail should be under the control of this place ; I am saying there should be some parliamentary accountability of a different kind from that which now exists.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Member is working himself round remarkably close to the Bill that we have. I understand that it proposes parliamentary accountability in general, but not over detailed matters, just as happens in nationalised industries.
I issue a warning about log-book registrations. I emphasise that I am not a lawyer, but all Members of Parliament have experience of the difficulties that arise in conveyancing. It is not a simple matter of saying, "There is a square of land, and it belongs to A. All we have to do is to transfer it to B and to make an entry on a log-book". There are such things as restrictive covenants.
Then there is the matter of searches. We all know the agonies that occur when it turns out that searches have been inadequate, when a local authority suddenly comes up with new plans which technically it did not have an obligation to disclose at the time the searches were made. Sometimes, of course, searches are not made adequately.
Then there is the problem of new estates. Usually there is a specification of a new estate, and somebody purchasing property on a new estate is entitled to expect that the rest of the estate will be developed as the original specification says. Yet, there are instances of an increase in density which becomes intensely annoying. In all these matters a purchaser requires proper legal advice and it is dangerous to think that one can do it oneself.
I had an example recently. To his horror, a constituent found that he did not own the end of his front path where it led out on to the pavement. It was part of the land belonging to someone else. When the estate was laid out, it was thought that that land would be public land. However, there was then


a change of plan and the portion in question was handed over to somebody else's garden. Now, my constituent has had a fence put across his front entrance and the developer has had to provide him with an entirely different front entrance. His lovely paving-stones have disappeared and a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation has arisen. It arose though a mistake in conveyancing. His solicitor did not come along and check on the ground whether his front path crossed somebody else's land.
There are immense difficulties. Conveyancing is necessary, but conveyancing supported by good land registration must be much simpler. I strongly support any proposal that will accelerate the introduction of compulsory registration throughout the whole country.
It is of great importance that the tenant, local authority and others have the right to know who the landlord is, but I doubt whether this Bill is the right way of extending that right. At present there is a requirement in a weekly rent book to show the name and address of the person responsible for the property to whom the rent is paid, but who may not be owner. But that applies only to rent books, and rent books are required only for a weekly tenancy. For monthly tenancies there is still no practical way by which a tenant can discover the person responsibile for the condition of the property. He may not do so as of right.
That is a reform that I want, but I believe that the Housing and Planning Bill will be the best place to introduce it. The landlord, the owner of the land, the freeholder, someone with a long leasehold, who will be registered in the land registry, is not necessarily the person who is at fault in not keeping premises in good condition.

Mr. Silkin: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had the sort of experience in his constituency that I have had often in mine. The tenant says that he has just been told that there has been a change of landlord. In other words, the agent or the new landlord has written to say that the rent must be paid to him now. The tenant may or may not have a theoretical right to find out, but often it is virtually impossible for him to find

out whether he ought to obey that instruction.

Mr. Allason: Happily, it does not happen very often in my constituency. My experience of this problem was gained on the Kensington Council, where it was a considerable problem.
I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could tell us the effect of an amendment giving the right to any member of the public to inspect the registry and dealing with my suspicions that it would not solve the problem. It is an open secret that the Housing and Planning Bill is about to appear and I believe that it will be the best place to introduce this necessary reform.

11.58 a.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I suppose it would be fair to say that the history of land registration in this country, excluding curios like the Domesday Book, begins with the Select Committee of 1846 in the other place. It came to the conclusion that there were unnecessary burdens in transferring land and recommended as a remedy the institution of a register of all deeds.
The Royal Commission, which started sitting in 1854 and reported in May, 1857, similarly examined how the register should best be operated. It was the unanimous view of that Royal Commission that it had to be a part of central government, a government function, not some private or public board, or a commission, as with the Customs and Excise, but a direct part of government that should operate this register.
As was pointed out earlier today, the first two Acts were in 1862 and 1875. In 1875, Lord Selborne said of the whole process that we are considering in the Bill, that which made registration compulsory and irrevocable was the proper instrument and machinery for introducing a general reconstruction and reform, gradual and progressive, into the whole system of land titles and land transfers. That was 99 years and 13 months ago to the day, and we do not have it yet. We still have not approached the concept of compulsory irrevocable registration leading to a general reconstruction and reform, gradual and progressive, to the whole system of land titles and land transfers. Nothing in the Bill leads me to


believe that it will expedite the achievement of that objective.
The Land Registry in 1886 fell into one of its periodic hard times because Lord Halsbury, the then Lord Chancellor had to introduce a Land Registry Bill in great haste for the quaint reason that in consequence of the death of Mr. Brent Spencer Follet, QC, who had for some years been Chief Registrar for the Land Registry Office, because no provision had been made in the Acts which constituted the office for the duties of the registrar to be performed by anybody else. Parliament had set up the office and created a land registrar, but once he died there was some difficulty because all its functions died with him. Parliament therefore had to rush through an immediate resuscitatory measure, and it was in the debate on this occasion that the Attorney-General, Charles Russell, said
I speak the opinion of the profession when I say that from beginning to end these two Acts (1862 and 1875) were signal failures—that they have cost this country a great deal more money than they are worth and that they have done little better than to establish one or two not unimportant sinecures.

Mr. Atkinson: And so it goes on to the present day.

Mr. Hughes: That is a little vignette of the problems of land registration, and, as my hon. Friend said, so it has gone on to this very day—pious hopes, genuinely meant, sincerly believed, but never carried out.
One would have thought that with the Grey Report of 1951 the arguments as to the benefits to be achieved by compulsory registration were finished and clearly when he introduced the Bill in another place the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor made no question of his own personal commitment to the expansion of land registration.
But we then get, as the great defence of the Bill, the statements of Lord Gardiner in 1968 when he was Lord Chancellor. The reasons, according to him, for the slowing down of the whole process of land registration, and here I quote the Lord Chancellor in the debate on Second Reading in the other place, were:
The answer is to be found in the HANSARD of this House of July 31 1968 … I want to hasten to say that I put no blame

on the noble and learned Lord. The 8-year plan was, however, laid to rest by the noble and learned Lord, in spite of the protests from the Liberal Party and my own. The reason given by the noble and learned Lord was the need not to increase the number of civil servants and therefore Government expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th November 1973 ; Vol. 346, c. 908.]
This leads one to suppose that either the Treasury and the Cabinet are so obtuse as to believe that a diminution of civil servants, when they are self-financing, is a benefit to this country by changing the name, or that an increase is a disaster when they are self-financed.
It may be that in earlier times it was the problems of the legal profession that caused difficulties for land registration, but we are now told that the difficulty resides in the Treasury and in the Cabinet, which to my mind assumes a degree of idiocy in both those places which I would find, despite strong evidence to the contrary, difficult to accept in toto. We are told that the barriers to expansion are to be removed by the Bill, a thought which I find has no credibility at all.
We are told also that it is part of the policy of the Government to hive off self-sufficient organisations. One of the first Committees on which I sat as a new Member considered a Bill concerned with hiving off from the National Coal Board. I would be the last to impede the Coal Board hiving off its salmon fisheries.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Very profitable.

Mr. Hughes: It does not seem to me that the ownership of fishing rights is what we nationalised the coal industry for, but highly profitable they were and off they went.
Similarly, I would object strongly to the recent hiving off of the brickworks. For the information of the Committee, I may say that there is one area where overtime is banned by the NUM. The NCB is not the employer—it is now a private brickworks company—and the company has privately offered employees a wage increase far in excess of phase 3, and yet overtime is still banned because, union-wise, the men are still not allowing themselves to be hived off.
The Government now say, "We hive it off because it is part of our policy


to remove from formal public activity into a slightly less formal procedure, and as such this would help." On both those arguments, with great deference to all that has been said this morning, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner summed the whole thing up:
It is a silly Bill ; it is a Bill the logical basis of which does not carry any weight.
Let us consider the profit and loss account of the Land Registry over recent years. In 1966–67, it made a loss of some £19,000 ; in 1967–68, a further loss of £17,000. By 1969–70, the loss rose to £483,000. In 1970–71, it was £908,000. Clearly, something was amiss. The fees, if it were a commercial organisation, were too low. Therefore, up went the fees, so that in 1971–72, from a loss of £908,000 in the previous year, it showed a profit of £2,300,000.
In 1972–73, the profit rose to £6 million, which, on a rough calculation of a labour force of 5,000, means that the value added over and above his own salary by every member of the Land Registry was £1,000. That is the staff's contribution to the Consolidated Fund by their labours over and above the income tax and the contributions that all of us make. Every member of the Land Registry staff contributed £1,000 to the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The phrase "value added" struck me as rather odd. It is "value extracted", because a monopoly is being operated.

Mr. Hughes: As I have always held that the phrase is equally inappropriate for the tax recently introduced, I would accept that it should be called the value extracted tax, too.
In June of last year, the fees were reduced, and I should like to know whether the 20 per cent. reduction in fees then announced will result in a lower profit and, if so, how much lower profit is expected for the financial year ending in April. Here is a clear sign that this is a body where the settlement and determination of fees alone determines how much profit or loss is made. If we are concerned with making compulsory land registration more effective, to saddle its users with an excess profit of £6 million is to extract from them more than anyone should decently ask.
Let us now turn to certain more detailed points of the Bill. I noted with interest that, with one word omitted, the Solicitor-General, introducing the Bill today, quoted the precise agreed formula which had been made in the other place regarding the staff side. I ask him to check whether the omission of the definite article in that statement, which I shall now draw to his attention, was intentional or accidental. In the statement in the other place the Lord Chancellor said:
They will cease to be civil servants, but we are prepared to guarantee that the terms of employment offered will be the terms on which the staff were serving on the day before the transfer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th November 1973 ; Vol. 346, c. 911.]
In his statement to the Committee this morning, while the whole of the rest of the passage is identical, the Solicitor-General omitted the word "the" before "staff".
I accept that it is a fine point as to whether it is the terms "staff were serving" or "the staff were serving", but if "the" is omitted, the fear of redundancy creeps in, however narrow the difference. The guarantee by the Lord Chancellor in the other place was that it would be the terms on which "the" staff were serving, whereas the guarantee in this place, in all other respects identical, omitted the word "the".

The Solicitor-General: There is nothing sinister about this. The obligation as stated by me is exactly the same as the obligation stated by the Lord Chancellor. All members of the staff will be entitled to those guarantees.

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged for that assurance.
What was not mentioned was that the staff side is resolutely opposed to the whole of the Bill. For instance, 75 per cent. of the 900 members of one association have indicated that they do not wish to be hived off. As it happens, the chairman of the staff side is a constituent of mine working at the Durham District Land Registry. The membership of the CPSA are 60:40 opposed to the whole concept of hiving off, and I say that as a constituency Member from a special development area where Civil Service jobs are a most high prized and desirable addition to the spectrum available for employment.
I turn now to the problems that the Bill will create for the immediate areas of Durham City. At the moment, young persons wishing to go into the public service may be offered the security of full Civil Service membership, including transfers and so forth, by going into the National Savings Certificate Division in Durham. The alternative is that they go to the Land Registry which is in the same city.
But if they chose to enter the Land Registry, their promotional prospects are diminished. They are up a narrow creek, however idyllic that creek may be, for they see no real prospect of transferring out of the Land Registry into main stream or other areas of the Civil Service, whereas, if they go into the National Savings Certificate Division, with equal qualifications, they see their horizons potentially wider. One of the risks, not only in London at the small headquarters staff of the Land Registry, but at the various district registry offices, is that, when competing for highly qualified staff with the main path of the Civil Service, this artificial hiving-off carries with it a significant disadvantage in terms of the staff's ability to transfer within the Civil Service.
As suggested, it is perfectly acceptable that they shall have the new conditions of service and pay agreed for the Civil Service, but what they do not have is the right of transferring out. To the best of my knowledge, they do not have the right to ask to transfer out before they are hived-off. They may have their employer changed before hiving-off, or at hiving-off, without the guarantee of transfer. If I am in error on this, my constituents would be most pleased to discover that they have the right to leave the Land Registry before it ceases to be an element in the Civil Service.

The Solicitor-General: May I again set the hon. Member's mind at rest? That, indeed, was the great anxiety, but as it is set out in the statement, the right of transfer has been preserved and maintained.

Mr. Hughes: But what is made clear is that current staff have the right of transfer, but that new entrants do not have the same guaranteed right. There is the problem that new recruits entering the service at a future date have no such guarantee of transfers, I should have made that clear.

The Solicitor-General: The same guarantee will apply not only to those employed on the appointed day, but to all those who join afterwards.

Mr. Hughes: I am most grateful for that guarantee, which will please many constituents.
There was, as the Solicitor-General well knows, some discussion as to whether the Chief Land Registrar needed to be a legally qualified person. It can be argued that as 80 per cent. plus of his work load is administrative, and when he becomes the chairman of an independent board that element may well be a much more significant part, the argument that he needs to be legally qualified becomes rather finer.
I have never heard it argued in the case of other independent boards, such as the British Airways Board, that the chairman of that board needs to be a qualified airline pilot, nor, in order to qualify to become chairman of the Coal Board, that one needs to be a mining engineer. Yet, in this case, whatever the recommendations and representations of the Fulton Committee, if two persons enter the Civil Service in the Land Registry, one of them with a double-first in mods and greats and the other with a fourth in law, the man with a fourth in law—[Hon. Members: "A fourth?"] Yes—at Oxford still? Oh, have they changed it?

Mr. Bell: A fourth was very difficult to get, and highly prized.

Mr. Hughes: As one who escaped it but narrowly, I would have said that if one takes a person with a poor degree in law, but he is legally qualified, and one takes the most brilliant and academic product of this country and both enter the Land Registry, for the one there is no possibilty whatever of his becoming the head of his department, and Fulton and all the recommendations on the Civil Service have argued consistently that there should be the opportunity for the Field Marshal's baton to be in every new recruit's satchel.

Mr. Atkinson: Is it not more pernicious that in the House itself there are these curious traditions, in the sense that those on the Front Bench and those in the Cabinet who are performing administrative political law jobs are of necessity legally trained? Indeed, there is no reason why the Attorney-General should


practice in the courts, but in fact it is always accepted that the Attorney-General is a barrister and there is no reason why that should be so.
Indeed, if we had engineers or fitters——

The Chairman: Order. This is getting rather wide of the Bill.

Mr. Atkinson: I do not think so, Sir Ronald. It is extremely relevant. This tradition goes through the whole function of Parliament and all that goes with it. In every instance of people of limited quality being in these jobs, we should consider the matter.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would my hon. Friend allow me to join this friendly exchange? By the same token, would my hon. Friend agreed that an Attorney-General would be suitable for appointment as an engineer-fitter?

Mr. Atkinson: Indeed !

The Chairman: We must not have interventions within interventions.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that both my hon. Friend and right hon. and learned Friend have offered assistance with this difficult point.
Clearly, one appreciates the arguments for the head of this new hived-off affair being legally qualified. Having read the debates in the other place carefully, I am not satisfied, however, that is is an absolute necessity that has to be written in by statute. Therefore, when we get to Committee, I shall wish to delete that element from Clause 5(3) which says:
… unless he is either a barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years standing.
I would accept that in the normal run of events it would be probable that the Chief Land Registrar would be a qualified barrister or solicitor. To write into statute, however, that he must inevitably be is to disenfranchise from promotion persons who may be extraordinarily worthy of the highest office in that sphere.
I also press the argument that on the board there should be a sufficient number of lay outsiders, and that among the customers of a well organised Land Registry are not just solicitors, but members the general public and planning

authorities, who have a need to be represented if one if to hive off this function at all, which I would dispute. Clearly, the need for effective outside representation on the board is considerable.
As a member of the Select Committee on the ombudsman, may I record in this Committee my disquiet that, whereas in the case of the proposals to establish a Health Service Commission or a Commissioner for Local Government, the Ministers concerned have seen fit, through their senior civil servants, to inform the Select Committee on the ombudsman, there has been no such information on this occasion. The first the Select Committee knew about it when the Bill had gone to the other place and then come here, was when we saw it in the schedule.
It may be that few cases of maladministration in the workings of the Land Registry, are brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner, but that is not a reason in itself why the Select Committee should be treated somewhat cavalierly. It certainly leads one to have misgivings as to the benefits to be derived from removing the Land Registry from the ombudsman's oversight.
No doubt, technically, because they cease to be civil servants, the staff escape his net, but to diminish his office by this procedure serves no useful purpose. It does not allay the public fear of maladministration, and nothing in the Bill replaces the security against maladministration that the presence of the ombudsman has previously provided.
As we have always accepted on that Select Committee, it may well be that is precisely those Departments which have the fewest complaints against them where the ombudsman's existence is at its most effective. He should only come in when his existence has been forgotten. If they are working and avoiding maladministration, no cases will go to him. However, if the ombudsman is removed, as is envisaged by the Bill, that pressure will be removed, too. I would therefore echo all that has been said about the need for open inspection by all—not just the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I turn now to certain areas of the initial debt, the funding and the financing of the proposed new board. First, the initial cost of the Land Registry building. The original cost in the first decade or


so of this century was some £250,000 paid for out of the fees of the users of the Land Registry, not paid by Crown money, in the sense now that we are hiving off, but by the fees accruing to the Land Registry. Whatever its value today—the Land Registry actually occupies only a small part of—it is being removed from their ownership, with no compensation, and instead the Government in their bounty are asking the Land Registry to pay £150,000 a year rent.
The property that it built out of its moneys is now taken from it, without compensation. I am sure that there will be some of my hon. Friends who will note that de-nationalisation without compensation is practised by the Government. They take an asset from a corporate body and they do not pay for it ; instead, they charge the body rent for that which is its own. The total debt provided for is some £10 million, with a further £5 million borrowing rights.
I return to the problem of the Durham District Land Registry. At the moment it exists in a half-renovated 18th-century house and 17 Nissen huts. It needs—and plans are well advanced—a new building for which it has the site. The Hardman Report on the Dispersal of the Civil Service, in the totals, adds in the expansion of Durham, which can only be achieved with a new building. One fears that on the slender funding of £10 million to £15 million as the capital value, there will not be the moneys available to enable the physical expansion of the resource base, not just the personnel, to be carried out. If the Government undercapitalise the Land Registry to the degree which I suspect they are now doing, they will be vitiating their own avowed intention on the Bill. If the Land Registry does not have the capital to build new offices, how can it expand, because it has not got the space to expand anywhere else?
Clearly, the provision whereby any accruing surpluses are paid on a one-way ticket into the Consolidated Fund means that the ability of the Land Registry in its new form to build up credit balances for new building purposes will be limited. Apparently, it may not save its money for two or three years to finance the necessary building which its expansion would require. As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor requires it to transfer

the money to the Consolidated Fund. It seems to me that unless I receive much stronger information on how this capital funding is envisaged, on this ground alone I shall be reluctant to support the Bill.
Therefore, in order not to delay the Committee further, on general grounds, as a hiving-off measure, it is a phoney. It does not really change the nature of the job ; it simply changes the name associated with the job. It is a dirty phoney, because it still leaves the Lord Chancellor with power of a sort, while depriving Parliament of such few powers as it has. It does not serve its avowed intention of assisting the expansion of land registration. It may well, because of its financial and other provisions, diminish rather than strengthen that desirable end. For that reason, I will support my hon. Friend who opposes the Bill.

12.30 p.m.

Mrs. Connie Monks: I support compulsory land registration in principle because, as a member of a local authority, I am well aware of the difficulties that arise in finding out who owns land. Also, as my constituency is part of the central Lancashire new town, we are having special difficulties in that connection.
I have seen instances of officers building up empires in other spheres, particularly since the reorganisation of local government, and I would not like to see that happen in the proposed new set-up. That is why I have certain doubts about the suggestions in the Bill. However, I support it in principle.

12.31 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: This has been a very interesting, valuable and important debate with particularly useful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) and the lion, and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
When making our decision about what to do at the end of the morning, we should look at what we are being invited to do and fully understand it. In that sense, important as the decision may be in relation to the Bill, it has a rather wider implication. The motion before the Committee is that the Committee should recommend to the House that the Bill should be read a second time.
In other words, in effect, it recommends to the House that it is not necessary for the House as a whole to debate the matters contained in the Bill as they are sufficiently non-controversial and sufficiently welcome.
What we are doing, therefore, is saying, not whether we support or do not support the Bill, but whether we think an airing before a Committee of this kind is adequate or whether there are matters which should be raised, either here, in the course of the debate or in the other place, which justify the view that the House should have the opportunity of debating it. It is in that sense that we should consider the matter.
The Opposition do not object to the Bill coming before a Second Reading Committee. I hope that the Solicitor-General will recognise that important points have been made regarding the Bill to which he should give consideration, not only in the sense of Committee points that can be dealt with later, but in the general sense that, having heard them, are the Government still of the opinion that this Bill should pass on the basis of the recommendation in the motion or are they of the opinion that the House should have an opportunity to debate it?
Having read what was said in the other place, and having heard what has been said here, it is clear, to me at any rate, that the purpose of the Bill is to remove a political restraint upon the expansion of land registration, which all of us agree should, as a principle, be expanded rapidly. The Bill is brought forward on the basis that if the political retraint which now exists is removed it will enable land registration to proceed at a quicker pace because there will be an organisation—not very different from the organisation that exists—with staff conditions which will make the staff, to all intents and purposes, still members of the Civil Service, both those who are there now and those who will come in the future, but because it will be an independent body, its difficulties in raising personnel to enable it to stand land registration as had been hoped will disappear.
It is a remarkable argument, perhaps even more remarkable when one considers

that it comes from the Lord Chancellor, who, as the great, strong man of the previous Conservative Government, was given enormous powers to deal with the situation in the North-East. That, of course, was before he became Lord Chancellor. It was thought that he, through his personal influence and authority, would be able to get things moving in a very depressed area. Now he is Lord Chancellor, and though the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) demurred on a point that I put to him about a possible reason for this Bill, namely, the Lord Chancellor's inability to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet that is precisely the reason given by the Lord Chancellor for his predecessor having to impose a stop or slowdown in the financial circumstances of 1968.
We are told that the justification for the Bill is that, though the Lord Chancellor will continue to guide policy and though in this place the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General will be able to be questioned, not about the day-to-day running, but about the general policy, though he will have control over financial matters, and though the staff will be in precisely the same position as if they were civil servants, none the less by hiving it off to a body which is nominally independent, all manpower problems which arose when it was part of the Civil Service Department will disappear. If that concept is right, it is a terrible confession of weakness on the part of any Government, and certainly on the part of any Lord Chancellor, if we have to accept that in order to get an extra 2,500 staff, we have to go through the procedure of taking the staff nominally outside the Civil Service. It is remarkable.
The Opposition, and I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, want to be assured that that analysis of the basic reason for the Bill is false, and that there are other more important factors contained in the Bill. If the sole factor of importance is the removal from the Lord Chancellor of a political embarrassment to the expansion that we all desire, I suggest that that matter should be debated by the House as a general principle, rather than on a Bill in which the problem arises.
I must leave the Solicitor-General sufficient time to answer not only the


major question of principle I have put to him but also a number of detailed matters which have been raised. However, in view of the evident importance of the manpower problem in the decision to bring forward the Bill, there may unhappily, from the political point of view, be some truth in the belief that it is difficult for a Lord Chancellor, however powerful a figure, to persuade his Treasury colleagues that he should have more money in times of restraint on expenditure, and that this is a device which may avoid that difficulty. I am not convinced that it will, but let us sup-post that it will.
On the other side of the manpower question my hon. Friend the Member for Durham raised an important matter. Are we by hiving-off this organisation and making it a separate organisation, even though connections will remain with Government machinery, making it more difficult to recruit the right type of manpower, so that on balance, while there may be one consideration which makes it easier, there will be others which make it more difficult? The staff of the Land Registry ought to have an opportunity of expressing their views—unless they have already done so—and their doubts ought to be clearly answered.
I should like to deal with the question of openness. I recognise that there may be difficulties in ensuring that all the facts about a piece of land are available to any comer. We should carefully consider—perhaps in Committee—what should be open and what should not. I shall not go into that matter at this stage. I see no difficulty in this or any other Bill of segregating the matters which should be open from the matters in intermediate areas which should not be open That could be done and it would be a great help.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) mentioned the difficulties of tenants and local authorities. From my experience, both as counsel and as a Member of Parliament, local authorities have great difficulty in establishing the ownership of a passageway or a small piece of land which seems to have left someone's ownership, but which often has become a nuisance, and in respect of which they are unable to take rapid action simply because they cannot find

out who the owner is. I have had several instances of that problem in my constituency. I hope that that situation will be looked at by whoever is considering the question of openness.
The new spirit of openness shown by the Government, however inadequate we may consider it to be, in relation to companies could be transferred to this subject.

Mr. Atkinson: Is it not the case that the owner must be registered in the Land Registry?

Mr. Silkin: I will leave the matter of land registration to the Solicitor-General. No doubt it is one of the matters he wants to answer. I do not want to take up time inadequately answering it for him.
I am not convinced that this subject is so non-controversial and matters raised in the debate are unimportant that the normal duty of the House of debating Bills should not be discharged. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can persuade me that I am wrong.

12.48 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: This has been a useful and interesting debate in which two major issues have been raised. First, will the manpower situation be improved? It plainly will, because any Government restriction upon limitation of manpower will disappear if the Bill is passed.
However, there is also the fundamental philosophy, set out in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government, under which the tests to be applied are: is the work sufficiently commercial to enable the organisation to be regarded as wholly or largely self-supporting ; do its responsibilities involve any degree of policy-making ; and do its responsibilities involve any discretionary authority of a kind which might affect the liberty or rights of the citizen? If those tests can be answered in the way that I suggest they can in this case, the Government's philosophy is that that organisation should stand on its own feet outside the Government.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) asked whether passing the Bill would rapidly result in the extension of the Land Registry. Once the Land Registry is


free of its existing manpower restrictions, it should be able to recruit staff—and it is satisfied that it will—for expansion without any great difficulty.
The programme, therefore, is as follows. Wilthin the five years following the passing of the Bill it is expected that all built-up areas will be covered by compulsory registration, and in the three years following that it is expected that there will be universal compulsory registration. It is a considerable improvement. This is what hon. Members and people outside desire, and I hope that by arranging matters in this way their desire can be fulfilled.
I have taken on board the point about the ombudsman, and I assure the Committee that I do not have a closed mind about it. This matter can no doubt be considered in detail in Committee.
Concerning the qualification of the lay members, I heard with interest the suggestions by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes). A number of classes of people, from local authorities, building societies or elsewhere, have been suggested and I welcome such suggestions for discussion in Committee. If hon. Members would be good enough to write earlier, their suggestions would be considered, because it is very important that the lay members should be representative of public and consumer interest.
With regard to profit-making, it is intended that the fees charged should cover the proper cost of the efficient service to the public and no more.
Although I may be slightly out of order, may I deal with the matter about funding raised by the hon. Member for Durham. Clause 9(4) enables the Lord Chancellor and the Registry to decide on the establishment of such reserves as are necessary for requirements, and Clause 12(2) is a long stop to prevent the retention of excess money in the Registry's accounts. However, I sympathise with the point which he made. There must be some building up of the capital account for the situation which he envisaged.
I hope I have sufficiently dealt with matters raised earlier in an intervention by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). The ordinary day-to-day matters which would be removed from

parliamentary scrutiny do not, in our view, involve any exercise of discretion in the ordinary conduct of business. The main issues—for example, what the fees should be, how quickly an extension of compulsory registration should take place, and what should be the reserve fund which the Registry keeps—will still be under the direction of the Lord Chancellor and therefore open to question here.
What has been said about delegated fees does not relate to the normal fees to be charged to the customer so far as the ad valorem fees are concerned. The fees in question are those which are necessary for photo copying, and so on. Delegated powers to assess only those minor fees will be given to the members of the Land Registry.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the orders made by the Lord Chancellor be subject to the negative procedure in the House of Commons?

The Solicitor-General: No.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) expressed the view one would expect from him. He is totally opposed to any hiving off and would therefore oppose the Bill. He might like to reconsider the slightly contrary view which he also takes—"Anything not registered is not there". That could not be done because one would have a form of compulsory takeover of land that was not there.
If compulsory registration were applied to the whole of England and Wales as soon as possible—and this is, in our view, the best method of doing it—then there will be no land left which is not in the Registry. We hope that this will be the most effective way.
The hon. Member for Tottenham also spoke of the risk of having Billy Butlin as chairman of the board. If we leave the Bill as it is, Billy Butlin cannot be chairman. If we alter the Bill as the hon. Member for Durham suggests, I suppose Billy Butlin or his successor could be. That is one of the advantages of keeping the process in legal channels.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of costs. I have the figures, but I will not weary the Committee with them now. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reduction in cost which would follow is remarkable. The figures we have relate


to the period when there were scale fees for conveyancing, but the reduction is remarkable on the sale of a registered titled house.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason)——

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of compulsory registration of landowners' names and identity, is that not the case at the moment?

The Solicitor-General: No. I was dealing with an entirely different point in connection with costs.
The amendment I intend to move in Committee will propose that the name and address of the proprietor should be disclosed to anybody who makes application. It is true that it will only be the name and address of the proprietor of land or property. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead will be patient for a few days longer to see whether any other developments arise.

Division No. 1.]
AYES



Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Awdry, Daniel
Fox, Marcus
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Fidler, Michael
Havers, Sir Michael





NOES


Atkinson, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Harper, Joseph
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Land Registry Bill [Lords] should be read a second time.

The Solicitor-General: It is my privilege and pleasure to express on behalf of the Committee our gratitude to you Sir Ronald, for your courtesy and conciseness in the conduct of our proceedings which have enabled us to complete

The following Members attended the Committee.


Russell, Sir Ronald (Chairman)
Harper, Mr.


Allason, Mr.
Hughes, Mr. Mark


Atkinson, Mr.
Jones, Sir Elwyn


Awdry, Mr.
Monks, Mrs.


Bell, Mr. Ronald
Owen, Mr. Idris


Fidler, Mr.
Silkin, Mr. S. C.


Fowler, Mr.
Solicitor-General, The


Fox, Mr.

The hon. Member for Durham made a thoughtful and constructive speech which was very helpful. The delay in 1968 was explained by the then Lord Chancellor as arising from a Government decision not to increase the number of civil servants, and therefore no extension of compulsory areas of registration could follow. That has bedevilled us ever since, which ever party has been in power.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The same old demonology !

The Solicitor-General: Yes, the same old demonology! Concerning present fees, the result of the reduction would be to reduce profits by £4 million in the current year.
I hope that those answers are sufficient in view of the time available today, and I accordingly invite the Committee to make the necessary recommendation.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

them in one morning. We are grateful to you.

Sir Elwyn Jones: May I endorse and reciprocate those expressions of gratitude and admiration, Sir Ronald?

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I, on behalf of the abstainers, add my thanks?

The Chairman: I am obliged.

The Committee rose at One o'clock.